COMPANION 


TO    THE 


REVISED    VERSION 


OF  THE 


ENGLISH  NEW  TESTAMENT 

BY  Alexander  Roberts  D.D., 

With  Explanations 

OF  THE  Appendix. 

RvaMe7nher  of  ike  American  Comnilftee. 


tW^^M^m 


:tr:^i' 


^7* 


■m 


& 


M 


a- 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/companiontorevisedOOroberich 


COMPANION 

TO  THE 

RevisedVersion  OF  THE  New  Testament, 


EXPLAINING  THE  REASONS   FOR  THE  CHANGES  MADE 
ON  THE  AUTHORIZED  VERSION. 


BY 


alex./roberts,  d.d, 

PROFESSOR    OF    HUMANITY,    ST.    ANDREW's,    AND    MEMBER    OF    THE    ENGLISH 
NEW   TESTAMENT  COMPANY. 


WITH  SUPPLEME.VT, 

BY 

A  MEMBER  OF  THE  AMERICAN  COMMITTEE  OF  REVISION. 


AUTHORIZED  EDITION. 


NEW   YORK : 
CASSELL,  PETTER,  GALPIN  &  CO. 


Copyright, 

iSSi, 

Cy  I.  K.  Funk  &  Co.  and  O.  M.  Dunham. 


PRESS  OF    J.    J.    LITTLE  «.  CO., 
KOS.    10    TO   20    ASTOR    PLACE,   NEW   VORK. 


As 

CONTENTS.  \t^} 


PART  I. 


N  ^(o 


CHANGES  ARISING  FROM  AN  AMENDED  TEXT, 
CHAP.  PAGE 

I.  Various  Readings  in  the  New  Testament i 

II.  Sources  of  Various  Readings  in  the  New  Testament 16 

III.  History  and  Character  of  the  Greek  Text  on  which  the 

Authorised  Version  was  founded 34 

IV.  Examples  of  Minor  Changes  caused  by  a  Change  of 

Text 46 

V.  More  Important  Changes  due  to  a  Change  of  Text 60 

PART  II. 

CHANGES   ARISING  FROM  AN  AMENDED  TRANSLATION. 

I.  Correction  of  Mistakes  in  the  Meaning  of  Greek  Words      75 
II.  Correction  of  Mistakes  in  Greek  Grammar 89 

III.  Correction  of  Archaisms,  Ambiguities,  and  the  Rendering 

of  Proper  Names  and  Technical  Expressions   105 

IV.  Correction  of  the  Unnecessary  Confounding  of    one 

Greek  Word  with  another  in  Translation  118 

V.  Correction  of  Needless  Variations  in  the  Translation  of 

the  same  Greek  words 135 


iv;i278479 


iv  Contents. 


PART   III. 

THE  ANGLO-AMERICAN   REVISION. 
By  an  American  Reviser. 

PAGE 

I.  The  English  Version  of  i6i  1 154 

II.  The  Canterbury  Revision  of  1870 162 

III.  American  Co-operation 165 

IV.  Constitution  of  the  American  Committee 168 

V.  Relation  of  the  American  and  English  Committees.  170 

VI.  The  American  Part  in  the  Joint  Work 175 

VII.   Some  American  Suggestions  adopted 181 

VIII.  The  Points  of  Agreement 188 

IX.  The  American  Appendix ig2 

X.  Points  of  Variation 194 

T.    Titles  and  Headings  of  Books 194 

2.  Archaic  Forms 196 

3.  Rendering  of  Terms  denoting  Coins 199 

4.  More  Accurate  Renderings 202 

Conclusion 204 

Index  of  Texts 207 


PREFACE. 

— ♦ 

The  object  of  this  little  work  is  to  explain  to  the 
English  reader  the  general  grounds  of  those  many 
departures  from  the  Authorised  Version  which  he 
will  find  in  the  Revised  translation.  Not  one  of 
these  alterations  has  been  made  without  what  ap- 
peared to  a  majority  of  the  Revisers  an  adequate 
reason.  They  are  all  to  be  traced  to  one  or  other 
of  two  causes— either  to  a  change  of  the  Greek 
text  which  it  was  found  necessary  to  adopt,  or  to  a 
change  of  translation  which  stricter  fidelity  to  the 
original  seemed  to  require.  Under  these  two  heads, 
all  necessary  explanations  (so  far  as  space  permitted), 
will  be  found  in  the  following  pages. 

For  the  sake  of  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the 
original,  the  Greek  words  referred  to  have  been  some- 
times given  at  the  bottom  of  the  page,  but  the  text 
will  be  perfectly  intelligible  without  these  to  the  Eng- 
lish reader. 

It  is  scarcely  needful  to  add  that  for  what  is  here 
Avritten  the  author  alone  is  responsible. 

S^.  Andrews. 


PREFACE   TO   THE   AMERICAN   EDITION. 


Dr.  Roberts,  a  member  of  the  English  Commit- 
tee of  Revision,  has  prepared  a  "  Companion  to  the 
Revised  Version  of  the  English  New  Testament." 
This  is  an  instructive  and  useful  explanation  of  the 
departures  from  the  Authorized  Version,  but  is  silent 
about  the  American  Appendix  and  the  relation  of 
the  American  Committee  to  the  whole  work.  It  is 
therefore  desirable  to  supply  this  defect  by  such 
additional  information  as  can  be  published,  without 
a  breach  of  confidence,  in  the  interest  of  both  Com- 
mittees, which  have  so  far  harmoniously  and  success- 
fully completed  their  joint  task. 

The  writer  has  been  urged  to  prepare  this  pam.phlet 
by  a  number  of  friends  and  fellow- revisers,  but  is 
alone  responsible  for  the  opinions  expressed,  and 
disclaims  any  official  authority.  The  New  Testa- 
ment Company  has  adjourned  sine  die,  and  is  not 
likely  to  convene  again  unless  a  special  emergency 
should  call  them  together.  An  official  history  of  the 
whole  movement  cannot  be  issued  until  the  Revision 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  completed. 

New  York,  May,  1881. 


PART     I. 


CHANGES    ARISING    FROM    AN 
AMENDED    TEXT. 


COMPANION 

TO  THE 


CHAPTER   I. 

VARIOUS    READINGS    IN    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

The  number  of  various  readings  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment has  been  differently  estimated  at  different  times. 
Nor  could  this  have  been  otherwise.  Every  new 
manuscript  which  is  discovered  increases  the  amount, 
and  every  more  accurate  examination  of  already 
known  manuscripts  tends  to  the  same  result.  Hence, 
while  the  varieties  of  reading  in  the  New  Testament 
were  reckoned  at  about  30,000  in  the  last  century, 
they  are  generally  referred  to  as  amounting  to  no  less 
than  150,000  at  the  present  day. 

This  is  a  statement  which  is  apt  at  first  to  be 
felt  alarming  by  those  unacquainted  with  the  science  of 
Biblical  criticism.  They  are  naturally  disposed  to 
ask — When  so  many  differences  of  reading  exist, 
must  not   the   sacred   text   be  very  uncertain?    But, 

B 


2  Ccmpantoti  to  the  Revised  VersioJi  of 

happily,  this  is  a  question  which  can  be  very  easily 
and  satisfactorily  answered. 

For,  in  the  first  place,  the  vast  majority  of  the 
various  readings  are  of  no  practical  importance. 
Multitudes  of  them  are  mere  errors  in  spelling  into 
which  the  writer  has  fallen,  either  from  his  ear  having 
deceived  him  if  he  wrote  from  dictation,  or  his  eye 
having  mistaken  one  letter  for  another  in  the  manu- 
script which  lay  before  him.  Others  consist  of  the 
substitution  of  one  synonymous  word  for  another,  or 
of  a  mere  change  of  order  without  any  appreciable 
distinction  of  sense.  As  in  English  the  meaning 
is  the  same,  whether  we  say,  "  He  went  forth,"  or 
"  He  went  out,"  "  Let  us  go  on,"  or  ''  Let  us  proceed," 
"  The  enemy  escaped,"  or  "  The  enemy  made  their 
escape,"  so  is  it  very  frequently  in  the  Greek.  And, 
just  as  it  makes  no  difference  in  our  language, 
whether  we  say  *'  Paul  the  Apostle,"  or  "  The  Apostle 
Paul,"  "  The  poet  Milton,"  or  "  Milton  the  poet,"  so 
too  is  it  with  a  large  number  of  those  variations  which 
occur  in  the  text  of  the  New  Testament. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  so  far  from  the  immense 
variety  of  readings  which  have  been  collected  giving 
rise  to  uncertainty,  the  very  fact  that  we  possess  these 
constitutes  our  best  hope  of  being  able  to  approach 
to  certainty  with  respect  to  the  original  text.  This 
may  appear  a  paradoxical  statement,  but  it  admits  of 


The  Englhh  Nav  Testament,  3 

easy  demonstration.  For,  let  us  refer  to  any  of  those 
ancient  writings,  in  the  printed  text  of  which  tliere 
exist  no  various  readings.  Are  such  texts  trustworthy 
and  pure  ?  Nay,  the  very  opposite  is  the  case  ;  they 
are  all  hopelessly  corrupt,  and  the  reason  is  evident. 
There  are  no  varieties  of  reading,  simply  because 
these  works  have  come  down  to  us  in  a  single 
manuscript  only.  That  manuscript  is  the  sole 
authority  to  which  appeal  can  be  made  as  to  their  text. 
And,  of  course,  if  every  printed  edition  is  taken  from 
that,  without  conjecture  venturing  to  make  any 
changes,  all  the  copies  will  be  exactly  alike.  But 
nothinjT  could  be  more  calamitous  to  an  ancient 
author  than  such  a  circumstance.  His  w^ork  having 
been  transcribed  so  often,  in  the  course  of  many 
centuries,  has,  of  necessity,  become  disfigured  w^ith 
numerous  errors.  And,  as  it  survives  in  only  one 
manuscript,  there  is  no  possibility  of  comparison, 
and  no  means  of  correction,  except  by  the  arbitrary 
process  of  conjecture,  which  will  always  vary  with 
different  minds.  The  consequence  is,  that  all  sorts 
of  guesses  are  made  by  editors  as  to  the  true  text 
of  these  unfortunate  writings.  While  there  are,  for 
the  reason  stated,  no  various  readings,  there  is  the 
utmost  variety  of  conjectures.  Every  one  feels 
that  the  existing  text  is  in  multitudes  of  passages 
corrupt,  and  from  want  of  documentary  evidence  has 

B  2 


4  Cofnpanion  to  the  Revised  Fers'on  of 

no  resource  but  to  proceed  to  correct  it  just  as   his 
caprice  or  judgment  may  suggest. 

How  different  does  the  case  stand  in  regard  to  the 
New  Testament !  No  miracle  has  been  wrought  to 
preserve  its  text  as  it  came  from  the  pens  of  the 
inspired  writers.  That  would  have  been  a  thing 
altogether  out  of  harmony  with  God's  method  of 
governing  the  world.  The  manuscripts  containing 
a  record  of  the  divine  will  have  been  left,  like  others, 
to  suffer  from  those  causes  of  error  which  will 
presently  be  mentioned.  But  a  gracious  providence 
has,  nevertheless,  been  exerted  in  connection  with 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament.  It  has  been  so 
ordered  that  vastly  more  copies  of  the  sacred  volume 
have  come  down  to  us  in  manuscript  than  of  any 
other  ancient  writing.  We  learn  from  the  best 
authorities  on  the  subject  that  no  fewer  than  1,760 
manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  in  whole  or  in 
parts,  are  known  to  scholars  in  our  day.*  The  most 
important  of  these  will  be  afterwards  described.  But 
it  is  enough  at  present  simply  to  note  the  existence 
of  such  a  wealth  of  material,  in  order  to  feel  how 
abundant  is  the  means  with  which  it  has  pleased  God 
to  furnish  us  for  ascertaining,  through  careful  exami- 
nation and  comparison,  the  true  text  of  the  New 
Testament. 

•  Scrivener's  Introduction,  2nd  ed.,  p.  269. 


The  English  New  Testa  me ?  it.  5 

We  may  now  proceed  to  a  consideration  of  the 
causes  which  have  given  rise  to  the  vast  variety  of 
readings  that  has  been  mentioned.  These  causes 
may  perhaps  all  be  embraced  under  one  or  other  of 
the  following  heads. 

First,  there  are  those  differences  of  reading  which 
have  sprung/;-^;;/ ////r  mistake. 

As  universal  experience  has  proved,  nothing  is 
more  difficult  than  to  get  any  large  amount  of  mere 
copying  work  done  with  absolute  correctness.  The 
transcriber  may  be  careless  or  incompetent,  and  then, 
of  course,  his  work  will  be  badly  done.  No  doubt 
this  has  given  rise  to  not  a  few  of  the  mistakes  which 
appear  in  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament.  Some 
of  the  copyists  knew  very  little  of  what  tliey  were 
doing,  while  others  disliked  the  drudgery;  and  so, 
from  ignorance  or  weariness,  they  fell  into  error.  But 
even  the  most  skilful  and  patient  of  them  might  easily 
go  astray  in  the  work  of  transcription.  One  word 
might  be  mistaken  for  another.  This  is  often  found 
even  in  printed  books  at  the  present  day.  It  is  need- 
less to  quote  examples,  as  all  are  familiar  with  them.* 
But   much   more   liable    to    this   kind    of  error  were 

*  A  long  list  of  mistakes  which  have  occurred  in  the  printing  of 
some  editions  of  the  Scriptures  is  given  by  Dr.  Eadie — The  English 
Bible,  II.  318.  Among  them  are  such  as  these— "  en  lice  J  in  every- 
thing," for  "enriched  in  everything"  ''leadeth  them  not,"  for 
"  ieadeth  them  out ;  "  "  eject/'  for  "  elect,"  ike. 


6  Coinpaiiton  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

transcribers  than  printers.  We  find,  accordingly, 
numerous  examples  of  various  readings  due  to  such 
mistakes.  It  is,  for  instance,  owing  to  tliis  that  we 
read  in  the  Authorised  English  Version,  at  i  Tim. 
i.  4,  these  words,  "rather  than  godly  edifying  which  is 
in  faith,"  instead  of  "rather  than  a  dispensation  of 
God  which  is  in  faith,"  as  in  the  Revised  Version. 
There  is  in  Greek  only  the  difference  of  a  single  letter 
between  the  word  meaning  "  edification,"  and  the 
word  meaning  "  dispensation,"*  so  that  copyists 
readily  mistook  the  one  for  the  other.  Sometimes  a 
mistake  of  this  kind  has  taken  place  without  any 
efiect  upon  the  sense,  as  at  Mark  v.  14,  where  the 
change  made  in  the  Greek  textf  has  led  to  no  change 
in  the  Revised  Version. 

Again,  transcribers  were  frequently  betrayed  into 
error  by  those  words  of  like  ending  which  occurred  in 
the  manuscripts.  An  illustration  in  English  may  be 
found  at  Matt.  v.  8,  9.  Both  these  verses  end  \vith 
the  word  "  God,"  and  it  is  easy  to  imagine  that  the 
eye  of  a  copyist  might  light  on  that  word  at  the  end 
of  verse  9  instead  of  verse  8,  and  thus,  after  tran- 
scribing the  one  verse,  be  led  to  omit  the  next 
following.  This  has  been  a  very  fruitful  cause  of 
omission  in  even  the  best  Greek  manuscripts.     Thus, 

•  The  two  Greek  words  are  otKodoiilau  and  oiKoi/ofiiav. 
f  airijyyeav  is  now  read  instead  of  affj-yyeiKau. 


The  English  New  Testament.  7 

in  perhaps  the  veiy  oldest  copy  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  we  possess — Codex  B,  to  be  afterwards 
described — we  find  that  the  whole  of  the  verse,  Matt, 
xii.  47,  has  been  left  out.  And  the  reason  is  quite 
obvious.  Both  verse  46  and  verse  47  end  with  the 
same  Greek  word.*  The  copyist  looking  up  at  his 
exemplar,  after  having  written  verse  46,  had  his  eye 
attracted  by  the  word  at  the  end  of  verse  47,  and, 
fancying  that  he  had  just  transcribed  that  verse,  was 
led  to  pass  it  over  altogedier.  There  can  be  no 
question  that  this  is  the  reason  why  the  second  clause 
in  I  John  ii.  23,  is  omitted  in  several  manuscripts,  so 
as  to  stand  marked  in  the  Authorised  Version  of 
doubtful  authority.  The  three  last  words  of  both  the 
first  and  second  clauses  are  exactly  the  same  in 
Greek ;  and  hence  the  second  clause  had  been  over- 
looked by  some  transcribers.  There  is  now  no 
hesitation  among  Biblical  scholars  as  to  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  clause;  and  it  consequently  stands 
unchallenged — a  weighty  doctrinal  utterance— in  the 
Revised  Version. 

Further,  mere  glosses,  doxologies,  or  liturgical 
formularies,  written  on  the  margin  of  manuscripts, 
were  sometimes  inadvertently  introduced  by  tran- 
scribers into  the  text.  Thus,  an  unwarranted  ex- 
planation has  been  admitted  at  John  v.  3,  4;  the 
*  Both  verses  end  with  KaXTiaai. 


8  Cotnpanioti  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

omission  of  which  in  the  Revised  Version,  on  good 
grounds  of  evidence,  relieves  the  passage  of  an  obvious 
difficulty.  The  doxology  of  the  Lord's  prayer,  Matt, 
vi.  13,  which  seems  to  have  been  quite  unknown  to  the 
early  Fathers  of  the  Church,  probably  crept  into  the 
text  from  the  margin  in  like  manner.  And  there  can 
hardly  be  a  doubt  that  the  ecclesiastical  foi'mtda,  Acts 
viii.  37,  found  in  many  manuscripts,  but  certainly  not 
genuine,  owed  its  place  to  a  similar  mistake.  Nothing 
could  be  more  natural  than  that  additions  from  the 
margin — explanatory,  doxological,  or  rubrical — should 
occasionally  fmd  their  way  into  the  body  of  some  of 
the  manuscripts,  while  yet  the  mass  of  authorities 
remained  uncorrupted,  and  still  enable  us  at  the 
present  day  to  discover  for  ourselves  the  original 
text. 

Once  more,  under  this  head,  error  would  some- 
times arise  from  the  unconscious  working  of  the  mind 
of  the  copyist  on  the  passage  before  him.  Few  tran- 
scribers could  act  the  part  of  mere  machines.  Their 
minds  accompanied  their  pens  :  they  thought  about 
what  they  were  doing ;  and  this  sometimes  proved 
fatal  to  the  perfect  accuracy  of  their  work.  Supple- 
mentary expressions,  due  to  the  exercise  of  their  own 
mental  powers,  slipped  in  without  their  perceiving  it 
Thus  at  Matt,  xviii.  28,  the  true  reading  is  simply, 
**  Pay  what  thou  owesfc,"  but  it  was  most  natural  for  a 


The  English  Nen^   Testament.  9 

copyist  to  insert  a  pronoun,  so  as  to  read  as  in  the 
text  represented  by  the  Authorised  Version,  "  Pay  me 
what  thou  owest."  Thus,  again,  the  reading  of  the 
Revised  Version  at  Luke  xxiv.  53  is,  "  were  con- 
tinually in  the  temple,  blessing  God,"  but  in  not  a  few 
manuscripts  we  find,  "  praising  and  blessing  God." 
There  is  no  reason,  in  such  cases,  to  imagine  that  the 
variation  arose  from  design  on  the  part  of  the  tran- 
scribers. They  were  men  and  not  machines,  and 
sometimes,  all  unconsciously,  left  the  impress  of  their 
own  thoughts  upon  their  work.  Judging  by  constant 
experience,  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  unin- 
tended supplements  would,  in  this  way,  be  made  to 
the  text;  and,  unless  he  were  constantly  on  the  watch, 
there  was  even  all  the  more  risk  that  a  transcriber 
would  thus  be  led  to  deviate  from  correctness  the 
farther  he  rose  above  a  mere  piece  of  mechanism,  and 
executed  his  work  with  interest  and  intelligence. 

Hitherto  we  have  been  dealing  with  errors  due  to 
pure  accident — errors  with  which  the  will  of  the 
copyists  had  nothing  to  do,  and  from  which,  we  may 
believe,  they  would  have  gladly  kept  free  if  they 
could.     But  we  have  now  tj  notice — 

Secondly,  those  differences  of  reading  which  have 
arisen /r^;;/  intention  on  the  part  of  the  transcribers. 

Unusual  expressions  were  altered.  A  transcriber 
meeting  with  an  uncommon  word  or  an  ungrammati- 


10  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

cal  construction,  was  strongly  tempted  to  change  that 
into  a  form  with  which  he  was  famiUar.  It  might 
naturally  enough  occur  to  him  that,  in  such  a  case, 
his  predecessor  in  the  work  of  copying  had  made  a 
mistake,  and  that  he  ought  to  remove  the  blemish  thus 
introduced  into  the  sacred  text.  This  tendency  to 
correction  has  been  a  very  fruitful  source  of  various 
readings.  It  opeiated  in  many  ways.  For  instance, 
seeming  harshnesses  were  smoothed.  Thus,  at  Matt. 
XXV.  3,  we  read  in  the  Revised  Version,  *'For  the 
foolish,  when  they  took  their  lamps,  took  no  oil  with 
them."  But  the  initial  "  for  "  in  the  Greek,  not  being 
liked  or  understood,  was  exchanged  for  the  reading 
represented  in  the  Authorised  Version.  Again,  rare 
forms  of  words  were  rejected  in  favour  of  the  more 
usual.  An  example  occurs  at  Rom.  xiv.  4,  without 
having  any  effect  upon  the  sense.*  Grammatical 
corrections,  too,  were  made,  as  at  Matt.  xiii.  16,  Rev. 
iv.  i,t  and  in  many  other  places.  Moreover,  changes 
were  sometimes  introduced,  in  order  to  remove  real  or 
apparent  difficulties.  Thus,  at  Mark  i.  2  the  true 
reading  is  given  in  tne  Revised  Version — "  As  it  is 
written  in  Isaiah  the  prophet."  But,  inasmuch  as  the 
quotation  which  follows  is  not  wholly  from  Isaiah,  but 

*  Zwaru  is  now  read  instead  of  5vi  ar^s  icmv. 
+  oLKovei  has  been  substituted  for  the  true  reading  aKoiovffiVf 
and  Aeyovaa  for  \4yuVt 


The  English  New  Testament.  ii 

partly  also  from  Malachi,  the  words  of  the  Evangelist 
were  corrected  into  "  As  it  is  written  in  the  prophets." 
And  yet  again,  additions  to  the  text  seem  at  times  to 
have  been  made  with  the  mistaken  view  of  promoting 
edification.  Thus,  at  i  Cor.  vi.  20,  the  Revised 
Version  simply  reads,  ''Glorify  God,  therefore,  in  your 
body ; "  but  in  some  manuscripts  we  find  the  addition 
represented  by  these  words  in  English — "  and  in  your 
spirit,  which  are  God's."  However  excellent  the 
motive  which  may  have  prompted  the  appending  of 
these  words,  they  are  wholly  out  of  place,  and  only 
serve  to  blunt  the  point  of  the  Apostle's  exhortation. 
This  must  be  plain  to  every  one  who  considers  the 
context.  The  same  thing  appears  in  several  other 
passages,  and  very  markedly  at  Rom.  viii.  i,  where 
the  insertion  of  the  second  clause  does  away  with  the 
grand  simplicity  of  the  conclusion  stated  by  St.  Paul, 
w^hen  he  announces  as  the  result  of  all  his  previous 
reasonings — "  There  is,  therefore,  now  no  condemna- 
tion to  them  which  are  in  Christ  Jesus." 

In  view  of  what  has  just  been  said,  Biblical  critics 
have  adopted  two  great  principles  as  guides  to  a 
decision  with  respect  to  the  true  text  of  Scripture. 
The  first  is,  that  a  dif^cult  or  obscure  expression,  nay, 
even  an  almost  unintelligible  term,  or  a  wholly  un- 
grammatical  construction,  is  generally  to  be  regarded 
as  the  genuine  reading,  in  preference  to  another  which 


12  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

is  easy,  familiar,  and  correct.  The  reason  is  clear, 
since  a  transcriber  was  far  more  likely  to  change  what 
he  did  not  like  or  understand  into  something  which 
he  thought  better,  than  to  substitute  for  a  common 
word  or  a  correct  construction  that  which  was  unusual 
or  irregular.  The  other  general  principle  is,  for  the 
most  part  to  prefer  a  shorter  to  a  longer  reading.  As 
we  have  seen  above,  additions  were  apt  in  various 
ways  to  steal  into  the  text,  so  that,  where  there  are 
conflicting  readings,  the  briefer  form  has,  probably, 
the  stronger  claim  to  be  accepted.  Of  course,  how- 
ever, these  principles  cannot  be  carried  out  in  every 
case,  or  in  any  hard,  mechanical  way,  but  must  always 
be  applied  in  subordination  to  a  cautious  and  dis- 
criminating judgment. 

Next,  a  widely  operative  cause  of  various  readings 
has  been  the  practice  of  conforming  one  parallel 
passage  to  another.  As  was  to  be  expected,  from  the 
amount  of  common  matter  which  they  present,  this  is 
found  most  frequently  in  the  Gospels.  In  fact,  the 
tendency  might  be  largely  illustrated  from  almost 
every  chapter  of  the  first  three  Evangelists.  But  the 
following  examples  will  suffice.  The  true  reading  at 
Mark  i.  1 1  is,  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  in  thee  I 
am  well  pleased ; "  but  this  has  been  so  far  conformed 
to  the  text  of  Matt.  iii.  17,  as  to  stand,  "in  whom  I 
am  well  pleased."     Again,  the  true  reading  at  Matt. 


The  EngliiJi  New  Testaine7it.  13 

xvii.  4  is,  "  If  thou  wilt,  /  will  make  here  three  taber- 
nacles ; "  but  it  has  been  brought  into  harmony  with 
Mark  ix.  v.,  and  Luke  ix.  -^iZ-i  so  as  to  become,  "  Let 
us  make."  Once  more,  the  true  reading  at  Luke  viii. 
34  is,  "And  when  they  that  fed  them  saw  what  had 
come  to  pass,  they  fled,  and  told  it,"  &c. ;  but  two 
words  have  been  inserted  in  the  Greek,  that  it  might 
be  the  same  as  in  Matt.  viii.  2>l — "  ^^1  '^^^^  ^'^^ 
went  and  told,"  &c.  Now,  as  was  most  natural — and, 
indeed,  without  a  constant  miracle,  inevitable — the 
Synoptics,*  with  all  the  wonderful  verbal  agreement 
which  they  exhibit,  also  differ  occasionally  in  tlie 
reports  which  they  give  of  the  words  of  Christ  and 
others.  And  it  is  most  important  that  the  charac- 
teristic readings  of  their  respective  texts  should  in 
every  place  be  restored.  This  will  be  evident  when  it 
is  considered  that  these  minute  differences  clearly 
prove  that  the  Evangelists  did  not  copy  from  each 
other,  as  has  often  been  maintained,  but  were  original 
wTiters,  and  therefore  independent  witnesses  to  the 
Gospel  history.  In  the  Epistles  the  same  tendency 
on  the  part  of  transcribers  to  secure  a  verbal  har- 
mony between  parallel  or  similar  passages  may  also 
to  some  extent  be  detected.  Thus  we  find  Col.  i.  14 
conformed  to  Eph.  i.  7,  so  as  to  stand,  "  In  whom  we 

*  By  this  convenient  e-cpression  is  meant  the  first  three  Evan- 
gelists as  distinguished  from  the  fourth. 


14  CoinJ^anion  to  the  Reinsed  Version  of 

have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,"  while  the  true  reading  is,  "  In  whom  we  have 
our  redemption,  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins."  Many 
other  examples  of  correction  for  the  sake  of  uniformity 
might  be  quoted  from  these  Epistles.  This  was,  no 
doubt,  deemed  a  gain  by  the  copyists.  But  it  was,  on 
the  contrary,  a  loss ;  for  every  Biblical  student  at  the 
present  day  will  acknowledge  that,  though  the  two 
Epistles  are  strikingly  coincident  both  in  thought  and 
expression,  a  real  interest  attaches  to  the  distinctive 
forms  by  which  they  are  respectively  distinguished. 

Lastly,  some  various  readings  have  probably  been 
due  to  doctrinal  bias  on  the  part  of  transcribers. 
Considering  the  many  and  violent  controversies  which 
have  agitated  the  Church  in  the  course  of  her  history, 
this  could  scarcely  fail  to  be  the  case.  A  doctrine 
will  often  hinge  upon  a  single  word.  Whether,  for 
example,  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  God  at  Acts  xx.  28, 
seems  to  involve  the  chief  point  at  issue  between 
the  Orthodox  and  the  Arians  or  Socinians.  A 
strong  temptation  was  thus  presented  to  copyists  to 
tamper  with  the  text  according  to  their  own  predi- 
lections. But  upon  the  whole  this  temptation  was 
very  successfully  resisted.  We  have  every  reason  to 
believe  that  the  ancient  transcribers  in  general 
performed  their  solemn  task  with  the  utmost  fidelity. 
It  is  pretty  clear,   indeed,    that  the    substitution  of 


The  English  Neiv  Tcstamait.  15 

"Joseph "for  "His  father,"  at  Luke  ii.  2)1)'>  ^^^  again 
of  "  Joseph  and  Mary,"  for  "  His  parents,"  at  verse 
41  of  the  same  chapter,  was  made  in  the  presumed 
interests  of  a  very  vital  doctrine,  that  of  the  miracu- 
lous conception.  And  it  might  seem  that  the 
insertion  in  the  text  of  i  John  v.  7,  8,  was  plainly  due 
to  a  desire  to  uphold  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
Yet  this  famous  passage  may,  after  all,  have  been  at 
first  a  mere  marginal  gloss,  which  was,  at  length, 
admitted  to  the  text  through  inadvertence.  We  are 
unwilling  to  charge  wilful  perversion  upon  those  men 
to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the  many  manuscripts  of 
the  New  Testament  which  have  reached  our  day. 
Readers  of  the  Revised  Version  will  be  able  to  judge 
for  themselves  how  many  or  few  of  such  alternative 
readings  as  have  been  placed  on  the  margin  can  be 
ascribed  to  prejudice  or  unfaithfulness.  For  myself, 
I  believe  that  these  are  exceedingly  rare. 

And  now  having  had  before  us  the  amount,  the 
nature,  and  the  causes  of  the  various  readings,*  we 
proceed  in  the  next  chapter  to  consider  their  soiuxes, 
as  found  in  manuscripts,  ancient  versions,  and  Patris- 
tic quotations,  of  the  New  Testament. 

*  Additional  illustrations  of  the  causes  of  various  readings 
treated  of  in  this  chapter  will  be  found  in  Chapters  iv.  and  v.  of  this 
Part. 


1 6  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 


CHAPTER  II. 

SOURCES     OF    VARIOUS    READINGS    IN    THE    NEW 
TESTAMENT. 

The  most  immediate  and  important  source  of 
various  readings,  in  other  words,  of  the  materials  for 
comparative  criticism,  is,  of  course,  that  found  in  still- 
existing  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament.  As  has 
been  already  suggested,  a  very  great  number  of  these 
are  available  for  the  settlement  of  the  sacred  text  at 
the  present  day.  There  is  a  striking  contrast  in  this 
respect  between  the  New  Testament  and  other  ancient 
writings.  While  we  have  no  manuscript  of  Sophocles 
and  other  classical  authors  that  can  be  dated  higher 
than  the  tenth  century  of  our  era,  there  are,  in  our 
possession,  as  will  immediately  be  shown,  manuscripts 
of  the  New  Testament  dating  from  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries.  And,  while,  in  the  case  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  classics  we  sometimes  feel  reduced  to  only  one 
manuscript  as  the  fountain-head  from  which  all  the 
others  have  been  derived,  we  have,  in  the  case  of  the 
New  Testament,  multitudes  of  independent  copies, 
which  enable  us,  with  far  greater  certainty  than  can 


The  English  New  Testament.  17 

be  felt  in  regard  to  other  ancient  writings,  to  determine 
the  original  text. 

T^iejmanuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  are  divided 
into  two  classes,  according  to  the  manner  in  which 
they  are  written.  For  many  centuries  after  the  Chris- 
tian era  capital  letters  were  employed  throughout, 
hardly  any  distinction  being  made  at  the  beginning  of 
sentences,  and  no  space  being  left  between  the  words. 
The  following  verse  in  English  characters  will  give  the 
reader  some  idea  of  the  appearance  presented  by  these 
ancient  manuscripts. 

THEBOOKOFTHEGENERATIONOFJESUS 
CHRISTTHESONOFDAVIDTHESONOFABRA 
HAM.     Matt.  i.  I. 

Manuscripts  thus  written  have  been  styled  Ujictals, 
while  the  others,  written  more  in  the  form  common 
among  ourselves,  are  called  Cursives.  The  line  be- 
tween the  two  modes  of  writing  may  be  drawn  some- 
where about  the  tenth  century.  When  we  rise  beyond 
that  date  few  indeed  are  the  manuscripts  to  which  we 
can  appeal  for  the  materials  of  criticism.  Besides 
some  very  precious  fragments,  there  are  only.j^ve 
.copies  of  the  New  Testament  at  all  complete  which 
can  be  referred  to  a  higher  antiquity.  These  are  to 
be  dated,  as  we  shall  see,  between  the  fourth  and  the 
sixth  century. 
c 


1 8  Companioji  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

Biblical  scholars  have  adopted  the  practice  of  de- 
signating the  ancient  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment by  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.  This  is  a  concise 
and  convenient  mode  of  referring  to  them,  and  has 
been  generally  accepted  throughout  the  Christian 
world.  It  is  only  to  be  regretted  that  the  several 
letters  have  not  been  assigned  to  the  manuscripts  on 
any  fixed  principle,  but  simply  as,  in  the  progress  of 
textual  criticism,  they  happened  to  be  applied.  Neither 
the  value  nor  antiquity  of  the  Codices  is  indicated  by 
the  letters  naming  them,  or  by  the  order  in  which  they 
thus,  naturally,  fall  to  be  described. 

A,  or  the  Alexandrian  Manuscript,  This  is  a  very 
complete  copy  of  the  Greek  Scriptures.  It  is  bound 
in  four  volumes,  of  which  the  first  three  contain  the 
Septuagint  Version,  and  the  fourth  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  only  passages  in  which  this  manuscript 
is  defective  are  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  up  to  chap. 
XXV.  6,  beginning  with  the  Greek  word  which  corre- 
sponds to  the  English  "  Go  ye  out ;"  St.  John's  Gospel, 
from  "  that  a  man,"  chap.  vi.  50,  to  "  thou  sayest," 
chap.  viii.  52 ;  and  /  Corinthians,  from  "  I  beHeve," 
chap.  iv.  13,  to  "of  me,"  chap.  xii.  6.  The  Book  of 
Revelation,  so  apt  to  suffer  in  the  manuscripts,  has, 
happily,  been  preserved  entire  in  the  Alexandrian 
Codex,  from  the  circumstance  of  its  being  followed 
by  the  Epistles  of  the  Roman  Clement.     This  was 


The  English  New  Testament.  19 

the  first  really  valuable  manuscript  made  use  of  for 
the  purposes  of  criticism,  and  has  been  published  in 
fae-simile.  It  was  brought  to  this  country  in  1628, 
having  been  sent  in  that  year  by  Cyril  Lucar,  patriarch 
of  Constantinople,  as  a  present  to  Charles  I.  It  is 
preserved  in  the  British  Museum. 

Scholars  are  now  agreed  that  the  Alexandrian 
manuscript  is  to  be  dated  in  the  fifth  century.  Many 
have  thought  that  its  birthplace  was  Egypt,  but  the 
reasons  assigned  for  this  are  not  conclusive.  It  need 
not  be  doubted,  however,  that  it  was,  at  one  time,  at 
Alexandria,  whence  it  has  derived  its  name.  Cyril  was 
patriarch  of  that  city  before  being  transferred  to 
Constantinople,  and  probably  took  the  manuscript 
with  him  on  his  removal.  We  shall  afterwards  have 
occasion  to  notice  the  testimony  of  this  Codex  with 
respect  to  the  famous  passage  i  Tim.  iii.  16. 

B,  or  the  Vatican  manuscript.  This  is  a  most  in- 
teresting and  precious  manuscript.  Its  external  history 
cannot  be  traced  further  back  than  the  year  1475, 
when  it  appears  in  the  first  published  catalogue  of  the 
Vatican  Library.  For  a  long  time  this  manuscript, 
notwithstanding  its  known  value,  was  but  little  used 
for  the  criticism  of  Scripture.  In  fact,  it  was  not 
accessible  to  scholars.  Many  efibrts  were,  from  tmie 
to  time,  made  to  have  it  fully  collated,  but  in  vain. 
The  history  of  these  attempts  has  imparted  a  romantic 

C  2 


20  Cotnpaiiion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

but  somewhat  painful  interest  to  the  manuscript. 
Like  many  other  treasures  of  art  and  literature,  it  was 
removed  from  Rome  to  Paris  by  the  first  Napoleon. 
But  no  fully  competent  critic  had  then  an  opportunity 
of  examining  it ;  and  on  being  restored  to  the  Papal 
authorities  it  was  very  jealously  guarded.  At  last 
Cardinal  Mai  prepared  an  edition  of  it,  and  this  was 
'issued  in  1859.  But  \{  was  found  to  have  been  con- 
structed on  the  most  uncritical  principles,  and  conse- 
quently to  be  full  of  errors.  Biblical  critics  were  thus 
still  left  in  doubt  as  to  the  true  reading  of  this  manu- 
script in  many  passages.  This  continued  till  the  year 
1868,  when  the  New  Testament  text  of  the  Codex  was 
published  in  facsimile  by  two  eminent  scholars,  under 
the  auspices  of  Pio  Nono.  This  splendid  edition  was 
executed  with  the  greatest  care,  and  seems  to  leave 
little  more  to  be  desired  in  connection  with  the  queen 
of  all  the  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament. 

There  is  no  hesitation  among  scholars  in  dating 
the  Vatican  manuscript  at  least  as  high  as  the  fourth 
century.  Some  think  that  it  may  even  lay  claim  to  a 
still  higher  antiquity.  The  late  eminent  palaeographer, 
Dr.  Tregelles, remarks  : — "How much  older  this  manu 
script  may  be  than  the  middle  of  the  fourdi  century  we 
have  no  means  of  determining."*  It  is  certain  that  the 
letters  in  which  it  is  written  bear  a  striking  resemblance 

*  Introduction  to  the  Nnv  Testament,  p.  i6i. 


The  English  New  Testament.  21 

to  those  in  some  of  the  Greek  rolls  found  at  Hercula- 
neum.  And  all  the  other  features  which  it  presents 
testify  to  its  great  age.  Unfortunately,  it  now  wants 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  from  chap.  ix.  14,  all  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  and  the  Book  of  Revelation.  The 
witness  which  it  bears  to  the  true  text  in  some  inter- 
esting and  important  passages  will  be  adverted  to  in  a 
subsequent  chapter. 

C,  or  the  Ephraem  7}ianuscript.  This  is  what  is 
called  a  palimpsest^  that  is  a  manuscript  in  which  two 
different  works  are  found,  the  one  having  been  written 
over  the  other.  The  practice  originated  in  the  scarcity 
and  dearness  of  parchment  during  the  middle  ages. 
And  valuable  works  were,  in  this  way,  often  sacrificed 
to  others  which  were  comparatively  worthless.  It 
need  hardly  be  said  how  ignorant  were  the  copyists  of 
those  times.  Most  of  the  clergy,  even,  knew  scarcely 
anything  about  the  Scriptures.  According  to  George 
Buchanan,  it  was  usual  for  the  priests  of  his  day  to 
affirm  that  Luther  had  been  the  author  of  a  book 
called  the  New  Testament !  *  When  we  take  this 
profound  ignorance  into  account,  we  are  less  surprised 
than  we  might  otherwise  be  at  finding  that  the  sacred 
text  itself  was  sometimes  buried  beneath  a  different 
work.  In  the  case  of  the  Ephraem  Codex,  it  was 
some   of  the    Greek   writings   of  the   Syrian  divine 

*  Eadie's  Enj^Hsh  Bible,  ii.  311. 


22  CompaJiion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

Ephraem,  which  had  been  preferred  to  the  New 
Testament,  and  hence  the  name  given  to  the  manu- 
script. It  was  not  for  a  considerable  period  that  the 
sacred  text  was  discovered,  and  only  in  1834  was  it 
rendered  generall)^  legible  by  the  application  of  a 
chemical  tincture.  The  manuscript  was  soon  after- 
wards published. 

It  is  believed  that  this  manuscript  is  to  be  dated 
at  least  as  early  in  the  fifth  century  as  the  Alexandrian 
manuscript.  Little  is  known  of  its  history  beyond  the 
fact  that  it  once  belonged  to  a  nephew  of  Leo  X.  It 
is  now  preserved  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris.  So 
far  as  it  has  survived  it  is  a  very  valuable  copy  of  the 
New  Testament.  But  gaps  frequently  occur  in  it,  and 
two  whole  epistles,  second  Thessalonians  and  second 
John,  have  been  altogether  lost. 

D,  or  the  manicscript  of  Beza.  This  manuscript 
once  belonged  to  the  eminent  reformer  Beza,  and 
hence  its  name.  It  was  presented  by  him  in  the  year 
1 58 1  to  the  University  of  Cambridge,  and  on  that 
account  is  sometimes  referred  to  as  the  Cambridge 
manuscript.  Beza  tells  us  that  he  found  it  in  1562 
lying  neglected  in  the  monastery  of  St.  Irenreus  at 
Lyons.  This  manuscript  seems  to  have  been  slightly 
used  by  Stephens  in  the  preparation  of  his  third 
edition,  which  came  out  in  1550.  Nothing  whatever 
is  known  of  its  previous  history. 


A 


The  English  Nciv  Tcstmncnt.  23 

The  Codex  of  Beza  is  generally  referred  by  critics 
to  the  sixth  century.  It  contains  only  the  Gospels 
and  Acts  in  Greek  and  Latin,  with  a  few  verses  in 
Latin  (v.  11 — 15),  from  the  Third  Epistle  of  John. 
Many  strange  interpolations  and  manifest  corruptions 
occur  in  it,  but  it  is  nevertheless  of  great  value.  The 
University  published  a  facsimile  edition  of  it  in  1793  ; 
and  a  very  scholarly  edition  was  issued  in  common 
type  in  1864.  This  manuscript  is  remarkable  as  '/^ 
being  the  oldest  which  contains  the  section  John 
vii.  53 — viii.  1 1.,  a  passage  to  be  afterwards  considered. 

K,  or  the  Sinai  tic  7nanuscript.  The  late  Professor 
Tischendorf  discovered  this  manuscript  in  the  most 
singular  manner.  Being  in  1844  at  the  convent 
of  St.  Catharine  on  Mount  Sinai,  his  attention  was  one 
day  caught  by  some  leaves  of  vellum  set  aside  with 
others  for  lighting  the  stove.  His  quick  and  practised 
eye  detected  their  antiquity,  and  he  found  on 
examination  that  they  contained  a  portion  of  the 
Septuagint.  These  leaves  he  easily  obtained  from 
the  monks,  and  soon  afterwards  published.  But  it 
was  not  till  1859  that  he  first  saw  the  great  manuscript 
of  which  they  formed  a  part.  He  was  that  year 
travelling  under  the  patronage  of  the  Emperor  of 
Russia.  And  being  once  more  at  the  above-named 
monastery,  he  had  on  the  4th  of  February  the  whole 
manuscript  which  he  had  so  ardently  desired  to  find 


24  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

put  into  his  hands.  He  looked  at  it  with  almost 
overwhelming  joy  and  surprise.  And  the  brethren 
could  refuse  nothing  to  one  who  was  so  highly- 
honoured  by  their  great  patron  and  protector  the 
Czar.  Permission  was  readily  accorded  to  him  to 
copy  the  manuscript,  and  the  Codex  itself  was  soon 
afterwards  sent  as  a  present  to  Alexander  II.  It  is 
now  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg,  and 
was  published  in  1862  as  a  fitting  memorial  of  the 
thousandth  anniversary  of  the  Russian  Empire. 

This  is  an  unspeakably  precious  manuscript.  For 
one  thing,  it  has  the  advantage  over  all  the  others 
of  containing  the  New  Testament  complete.  It 
also  comprises  the  Greek  text  of  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,  and  part  of  that  of  the  writings  of  Hermas, 
two  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  whose  works  had 
previously  been  known  as  a  whole  only  through  a 
Latin  translation.  Tischendorf  was  naturally  disposed 
to  exaggerate  somewhat  both  the  antiquity  and  value 
of  his  wonderful  discovery.  He  even  placed  the 
Sinaitic  earlier  than  the  Vatican  manuscript,  but  in 
this  few  scholars  are  inclined  to  follow  him.  He  also 
adopted  some  impossible  readings  on  the  sole 
authority  of  this  Codex,  and,  in  general,  allowed  it 
undue  weight  in  the  establishment  of  the  New 
Testament  text.  But  avoiding  these  extremes,  the 
value  of  the  manuscript  is  universally  and  gratefuHx 


The  English  New  Testament  25 

admitted  by  scholars.  It  cannot  be  dated  very  much 
later  than  the  Vatican  Codex,  belonging  undoubtedly 
to  the  fourth  century.  And  though  it  contains  many 
obvious  errors,  it  yields  assistance  of  a  kind  most 
precious  towards  the  settlement  of  the  true  text  of 
the  New  Testament. 

Such  are  by  far  the  most  important  of  the  Uncial 
manuscripts^  and  it  is  unnecessary  here  to  describe 
any  of  the  rest.  Nor  shall  I  enter  on  any  description 
of  the  Cursives.  As  has  been  already  stated,  these 
are  very  numerous  ;  and  though  as  a  rule  they  are 
far  less  important  than  the  more  ancient  manuscripts, 
some  of  them  are,  nevertheless,  exceedingly  valuable. 
It  is,  of  course,  quite  conceivable  that  a  Cursive 
manuscript  should  present  a  text  really  better  than 
that  of  any  existing  Uncial.  For,  though  a  manuscript 
may  date,  say  from  the  eleventh  century,  it  might  have 
been  accurately  copied  from  one  belonging  to  the 
second.  This  is  possible,  though  such  may  not  be 
found  actually  to  have  been  the  case.  And,  therefore, 
all  the  Cursives,  no  less  than  the  Uncials,  must  be 
most  carefully  examined  and  duly  appreciated  by  the 
textual  critic  while  he  pursues  those  arduous  labours 
which  have  it  for  their  object  to  approximate  as  closely 
as  possible  to  the  original  text  of  Holy  Scripture. 

The  next  most  important  source  of  various  readings 


26  Companmi  to  the  Revised  Versh?i  of 

is  that  furnished  by  ancient  versions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. We  have  the  utmost  certainty  that  some  of 
these  were  made  at  a  date  considerably  higher  than 
can  be  claimed  for  any  manuscript  at  present  known 
to  exist.  They  thus  furnish  proof  with  regard  to  the 
prevailing  text  of  the  New  Testament  at  a  very  early 
period  in  the  history  of  Christianity. 

The  foUowing  are  the  ancient  versions  which  are 
less  or  more  available  for  the  purposes  of  textual  criti- 
cism. Some  special  drawbacks  which  exist  to  their 
use  in  this  respect  will  be  afterwards  briefly  noticed. 

Syriac  Versions.  Of  these  the  most  important  are 
the  Peshito,  the  Philoxenian,  the  Harclean,  and  the 
Curetonian.  By  far  the  best  of  these  is  the  Peshito 
(/.^.,  Simple),  which  is  truly  an  admirable  translation. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  it  was  made  in  the  second 
century,  and  were  we  sure  that  we  possessed  it  in  its 
original  form  it  would  thus  be  of  the  very  highest 
authority.  The  other  Syriac  versions  do  not  rank 
high  as  translations,  and  the  Curetonian  embraces 
only  fragments  of  the  Gospels. 

Latin  Versions.  So  prevalent  was  the  Greek 
language  in  Rome  for  several  generations  after  the 
commencement  of  our  era,  that  no  need  of  a  transla- 
tion was  felt  by  the  inhabitants  of  that  city.  Accord- 
ingly, the  first  Latin  version  appears  to  have  been 
made  not  in  Italy  but  in  North  Africa.     We  know 


The  English  Neiu  Testament.  27 

nothing  of  its  history.  It  was  used  by  Tertullian  and 
others  about  the  beginning  of  the  third  century. 
Some  excellent  manuscripts  containing  it  still  exist. 
The  very  learned  St.  Jerome  set  himself  to  the  re- 
vision of  this  version  about  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century.  He  improved  it  greatly  both  in  regard  to 
style  and  fidelity  to  the  original ;  but  it  was  not  till 
two  centuries  had  elapsed  that  his  work  took  the  place 
of  the  Old  Latin,  and  became  the  Vulgate  of  the 
Roman  Church. 

Gothic  Ve?'sion.  This  version  was  made  by  Bishop 
Ulphilas  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.  It 
is  not  now  known  to  exist  in  its  original  completeness. 
There  is  a  celebrated  "  Silver  Manuscript "  of  the 
Gospels  preserved  in  the  University  of  Upsala.  The 
letters  of  this  handsome  manuscript  are  marvellously 
uniform,  and  its  name  is  derived  from  the  fact  that 
they  are  written  throughout  in  silver,  except  the  initial 
letters  of  sections,  which  are  written  in  gold.  Belong- 
ing, as  the  version  of  Ulphilas  does,  to  so  high  an 
antiquity  as  the  fourth  century,  it  is  possessed  of  great 
weight  in  determining  the  text  which  had  then  become 
prevalent  in  the  Church. 

Egyptian  Versions.  There  are  two  Egyptian  ver- 
sions, which  are  now  known  respectively  as  the  J/tv;/- 
pliitic  and  the  Thebaic.  Before  the  fact  of  their  inde- 
pendence was  established,  they  both  went  under  the 


28  Conipamo?i  fo  the  Revised  Version  of 

common  name  of  Coptic.  This  appellation  was  de- 
rived from  Coptos,  a  very  ancient  city  of  Upper 
Egypt.  The  term  Memphitic  points  out  the  version 
which  was  used  in  Lower  Egypt,  and  was  taken  from 
the  capital  city  of  the  district ;  while  Thebaic  indicates 
the  version  used  in  Upper  Egypt,  and  was,  in  like 
manner,  derived  from  the  chief  town  of  the  country. 
The  Thebaic  version  is  supposed,  on  good  grounds, 
to  have  been  formed  in  the  first  half  of  the  third 
century,  and  to  have  been  followed  by  the  Memphitic 
not  much  later.  Both  versions  will  be  found  more  and 
more  valuable  for  the  purposes  of  criticism  the  more 
fully  they  are  studied.  Besides  these,  there  are  some 
fragments  of  a  version  which  has  been  called  the  Bash- 
muric,  and  which  was  evidently  related  to  the  Thebaic. 

The  Armenian  Version.  This  version  cannot  be 
placed  higher  than  the  fifth  century.  It  seems  to  have 
been  begun  soon  after  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  a.d.  431. 
Up  to  that  period  the  Armenian  Christians  appear  to 
have  used  the  Syriac  version;  but  two  native  scholars 
who  had  attended  the  Council  brought  home  with 
them  the  New  Testament  in  Greek,  and  from  that  a 
translation  was  made  into  the  language  of  the  country. 
The  Armenian  version  cannot  be  deemed  of  very 
great  importance  in  textual  criticism. 

The  Aithiopic  Version.  This  is  a  translation  of  the 
Scriptures  in  the  ancient  language  of  Abyssinia.     It 


The  English  N'eio  Testament.  29 

seems  to  have  been  formed  about  the  sixth  or  seventh 
century.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  it  was 
taken  immediately  from  the  Greek,  though  the  mean- 
ing of  the  original  was  frequently  mistaken.  No  very 
exact  edition  has  yet  been  issued,  and  the  version  is 
not  possessed  of  much  authority. 

The  other  ancient  versions  of  the  New  Testament 
are  the  Georgian  (sixth  century),  the  Arabic  (several 
recensions,  the  most  ancient  belonging  to  the  eighth 
century),  Slavonic  (ninth  century),  Anglo-Saxon  (from 
the  Latin,  eighth  to  eleventh  century),  and  Persian 
versions  (of  varying  and  doubtful  dates).  These 
versions,  with  all  later  ones,  though  taken  from  the 
Greek,  are  too  modern  to  have  much  weight  in  the 
settlement  of  the  true  text. 

The  deductions  which  must '  be  made  from  the 
value  of  even  the  most  ancient  versions  as  testifying 
to  the  true  text  of  Scripture  are  many  and  serious. 
First,  their  genuine  readings  are  often  doubtful.  It  is 
obvious  that  they  were  as  liable  to  corruption  in  the 
process  of  being  transcribed  as  the  New  Testament 
itself,  or  even  more  so,  since  greater  pains  would 
naturally  be  taken  in  copying  the  sacred  original  than 
a  mere  translation.  Again,  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  some  of  the  most  valuable  versions,  such  as  the 
Syriac  Peshito,  do  not  now  exist  in  their  primitive 
condition.      They  seem  to  have  been  conformed  to 


30  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

the  prevalent  text  of  the  fourth  century,  and  thus  fail 
us  as  witnesses  to  that  which  was  more  ancient.  On 
this  account  we  cannot  confidently  press  the  authority 
of  the  existing  Peshito  in  behalf,  for  example,  of  the 
Doxology  of  the  Lord's  Prayer.  Again,  in  some  few 
instances  the  authors  of  the  versions  appear  from 
doctrinal  bias  to  have  departed  from  the  orighial  text. 
Thus  Ulphilas,  who  had  adopted  Arian  views,  has 
inserted  in  the  Gothic  version  at  Philipp.  ii.  6,  the 
words  "  likeness  to  God,"  which  would  never  suggest 
the  true  Greek  text  implying  "equality  with  God," 
Lastly,  even  the  best  versions  have  frequently  mis- 
taken the  meaning  of  the  original,  and  may  thus  tend 
only  to  mislead  as  respects  the  genuine  text.  Suppose, 
in  illustration,  that  a  question  were  to  arise  with 
regard  to  the  Greek  expression  corresponding  to  the 
English  words  "  in  the  bush,"  at  Mark  xii.  26,  and 
Luke  XX.  37.  In  that  case,  the  Authorised  Version 
would  inevitably  suggest  a  wrong  preposition,  since  it 
has  here  quite  mistranslated  the  Greek.  The  mean- 
ing of  the  original  is  not  "  in  the  bush,"  as  if  referring 
to  locality,  but  "  at  the  Bush,"  denoting  that  portion 
of  the  Old  Testament  which  was  known  among  the 
Jews  under  the  tide  of  "the  Bush."  On  all  these 
grounds,  therefore,  the  Biblical  scholar  must  use  the 
ancient  versions  as  witnesses  to  the  genuine  text  of 
Scripture  with  great  caution  and  discrimination. 


The  English  New  Testament.  31 

The  only  remaining  source  of  various  readings  in 
tlie  New  Testament  is  that  found  in  the  citations  of 
its  text  by  ancient  writers.  And  here  it  might  at  first 
be  thought  that  we  have  access  to  more  primitive  and 
therefore  more  vaUiable  testimony  than  that  which  is 
furnished  by  either  manuscripts  or  versions.  The  stream 
of  quotations  from  the  New  Testament  begins  even  in 
the  first  century,  and  fiows  on  with  ever-increasing 
vokune  in  the  succeeding  generations.  When  we 
reflect  that  Clement  of  Rome  begins  to  quote  from 
the  sacred  writings  so  early  as  a.d.  97,  when  his 
epistle  seems  to  have  been  written,  and  that  he  is 
followed  by  such  voluminous  writers  as  Justin  Martyr 
and  Irenaeus  in  the  second  century,  as  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  and  Origen,  in  the 
third  century,  it  might  well  be  imagined  that  we  should 
thus  obtain  most  valuable  and  trustworthy  guidance 
as  to  the  primitive  text  of  the  New  Testament. 

But  here  again  there  are  very  serious  drawbacks. 
No  doubt,  these  early  Fathers  quote  most  copiously 
rom  Scripture,  so  that  the  substance  of  the  whole 
New  Testament  could  easily  be  collected  from  their 
pages.  But  important  deductions  must  be  made  from 
the  value  of  their  writings  as  authorities  in  textual 
criticism.  For,  first,  the  manuscripts  of  their  works 
which  we  possess  are  comparatively  modern — few 
indeed  rising  above  the  tenth  century,  and  thus  their 


32  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

genuine  readings  are  often  doubtful.  And,  next,  they 
generally  quote  from  memory,  not  feeling  the  need, 
and  not  possessing  the  means,  of  aiming  at  that 
verbal  exactness  called  for  at  the  present  day.  They 
had  none  of  those  facilities  of  reference  which  we 
possess.  The  turning  to  a  passage  and  verifying  it, 
would,  in  their  case,  have  implied  an  amount  of  labour, 
of  which,  with  our  Bibles  divided  into  chapters  and 
verses,  we  can  hardly  conceive.  Besides,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  many  passages  would  come  to  be 
loosely  and  popularly  quoted,  without  any  suspicion 
that  a  departure  was  thus  made  from  the  true  text. 
This  happens  constantly  among  ourselves  with  respect 
to  the  Authorised  Version.  How  often  will  one  see 
or  hear  Deut.  xxxiii.  25,  quoted  thus,  "As  thy  day  is 
so  shall  thy  strength  be,"  whereas  the  true  reading  is, 
"As  \X\y  days,  &c."-^ 

On  the  whole,  then,  there  is  reason  for  acquiescing 
in  the  following  judgment  with  regard  to  the  value,  as 
respects  textual  criticism,  to  be  attached  to  the  quo- 
tations made  by  ancent  writers  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment. "  Not  only  is  this  kind^of  testimony  fragmentary 
and  not  (like  that  of  versions)  continuous,  so  that  it 
often  fails  where  we  should  most  wish  for  information; 
but  the  Fathers  were  better  theologians  than  critics ; 

*  See  for  a  numerous  list  of  such  misquotations  Eadie's  English 
Bible,  ii.  328  ff. 


The  English  New  Testament.  33 

they  frequently  quoted  loosely  or  from  memory,  often 
no  more  of  a  passage  than  their  immediate  i)urpose 
required ;  what  they  actually  wrote  has  been  found 
peculiarly  liable  to  change  on  the  part  of  copyists  and 
unskilful  editors ;  they  can  therefore  be  implicitly 
trusted — even  as  to  the  manuscripts  which  lay  before 
them — only  in  the  comparatively  i^w  places  wherein 
their  own  direct  appeal  to  their  codices,  or  the  course 
of  their  argument,  or  the  current  of  their  exposition, 
renders  it  manifest  what  readings  they  approved.  In 
other  cases  the  same  author  perpetually  cites  the 
self-same  text  under  two  or  more  various  forms ;  in 
the  Gospels  it  is  often  impossible  to  determine  to 
which  of  the  three  earlier  ones  reference  is  made; 
and,  on  the  whole,  Scriptural  quotations  from  ecclesi- 
astical writers  are  of  so  much  less  consideration  than 
ancient  translations,  that  where  they  are  single  and 
unsupported,  they  may  safely  be  disregarded  altogether. 
An  express  citation,  however,  by  a  really  careful 
Father  of  the  first  four  or  five  centuries  (as  Origcn, 
for  example),  if  supported  by  manuscript  authority, 
and  countenanced  by  the  best  versions,  claims  our 
respectful  attention,  and  powerfully  vindicates  the 
reading  which  it  favours.''  *      • 

•  Scrivener's  Introduction,  p.  368. 


34  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  oj 


CHAPTER   III. 

HISTORY   AND   CHARACTER   OF  THE   GREEK   TEXT   ON 
WHICH    THE   AUTHORISED    VERSION    WAS    FOUNDED. 

When  an  English  version  of  the  New  Testament  is  put 
into  our  hands  as  furnishing  a  transcript  in  our  own 
language  of  God's  revelation  of  Himself  through  Jesus 
Christ,  it  is  of  the  most  vital  importance  to  be  assured 
of  the  trustworthiness  of  the  text  on  which  that 
version  has  been  based.  Without  this  everything 
else  must  be  comparatively  worthless.  What  we  want 
to  know  is  the  exact  message  which  has  been  addressed 
to  our  race  by  Heaven.  And  the  first  essential  to 
this  is  purity  of  the  original  text.  It  matters  not  how 
smoothly  a  version  may  read,  how  pleasing  may  be 
its  contents,  or  how  venerable  even  may  be  the 
antiquity  which  it  claims.  The  first  and  gravest 
question  to  be  asked  regarding  it  has  respect  to  the 
faithfulness  with  which  the  text  on  which  it  was  based 
represented  the  true  and  original  word  of  God.  How 
then,  Ave  anxiously  inquire,  does  the  case  stand  con- 
cerning this  point  with  the  Authorised  English  Ver- 
sion ? 

Before  being  able  to  give  a  full  answer  to  this 


The  English  New  Testament  35 

question  it  is  necessary  to  trace  the  history  of  the 
earliest  printed  editions  of  the  Greek  New  Testament. 
This  history  will  gradually  lead  us  on  to  the  text 
which  was  made  use  of  in  the  preparation  of  the 
Authorised  Version,  and  we  shall  be  enabled  to  form 
a  judgment  respecting  its  character. 

We  cannot  but  feel  it  somewhat  remarkable  that  so 
long  a  time  elapsed  between  the  invention  ot  the  art 
of  printing  and  the  passing  ot  an  edition  of  the 
Greek  New  Testament  through  the  press.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  first  book  ever  printed  was  the  Bible, 
but  this  was  in  the  form  of  tlie  Vulgate.  A  Latin 
edition  of  the  Scriptures,  very  handsomely  got  up, 
issued  from  the  press  at  Mentz  in  1452  ;  and  a  few 
copies  of  this  interesting  and  precious  publication  are 
known  to  be  still  in  existence  at  the  present  day.  The 
Hebrew  Bible  was  also  printed,  under  the  auspices  of 
some  wealthy  Jews,  in  1488.  But  the  century  which 
had  witnessed  the  invention  of  printing  was  allowed 
to  close  without  any  attempt  having  been  made  to 
prepare  a  printed  edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testament 
Some  brief  passages  of  the  Gospels  from  the  first 
chapter  of  St.  Luke — the  sacred  songs  of  the  Virgin 
Mary  and  of  Zacharias — had,  indeed,  been  added  to  a 
Greek  edition  of  the  Psalms  printed  at  Milan  in  148 1  ; 
but  no  one  as  yet  seems  to  have  conceived  the  idea 
of  issuing  a  printed  edition  of  the  whole  New  Testa- 

D  2 


36  Compa7iio7i  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

ment.  The  cause  of  this  probably  was  that  the  Greek 
language  was  still  but  very  imperfectly  known  to 
theologians.  The  "new  learning"  was  as  yet  only 
struggling  through  many  difficulties  into  acceptance, 
and  gradually  winning  to  itself  the  admiration  and 
affection  of  those  noble  men  who  aftenvards  cultivated 
it  with  so  much  energy  and  devotedness. 

To  the  able  and  excellent  Cardinal  Ximenes, 
Primate  of  Spain,  belongs  the  honour  of  having  first 
projected  an  edition  of  the  entire  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment. His  plan  was  to  embrace  it  in  a  Polyglot 
Bible,  intended  to  incKide  both  the  Hebrew  text  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  Greek  Septuagint  version  with 
the  Chaldee  Targum  of  Onkelos  and  the  Latin  Vulgate. 
The  fifth  volume,  which  is  devoted  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, was  first  printed,  and  it  bears  on  its  last  page 
as  the  date  of  its  completion,  January,  10,  15 14.  But 
its  publication  was  delayed,  apparently,  at  first,  with 
the  view  of  waiting  for  the  remaining  volumes.  The 
last  of  these,  numbered  as  the  fourth,  is  stated  to  have 
been  finished  on  July  10,  1517.  But  the  exemplary 
prelate  who  had  originated  and  superintended  this 
great  undertaking  died  soon  afterwards  (Nov.  8,  1517), 
and  the  issue  of  the  volume,  was,  in  consequence,  still 
further  delayed.  It  was  not  till  March  22,  1520,  that 
Pope  Leo  X.  formally  sanctioned  its  publication. 
Thus  came  forth  at  length  what  is  known  as  the 


The  English  New  Testament.  37 

Complutensian  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  Com-  | 
plutiim  being  the  Latin  name  for  Alcaic,  where  the  1 
work  was  prepared. 

Meanwhile,  however,  important  steps  had  been 
taken  in  another  quarter.  The  ilkistrious  Erasmus 
comes  into  view,  a  man  to  whom  modern  thought  is, 
in  so  many  ways,  under  such  deep  and  lasting 
obligations.  That  great  scholar  was  in  England  in 
15 15,  and  on  April  17th  of  that  year  he  received  a 
request  from  Froben,  an  eminent  printer  at  Basle,  to 
prepare  for  publication  an  edition  of  the  Greek  New 
Testament.  Though  encumbered  by  other  literary 
labours,  Erasmus  set  about  this  work  with  characteristic 
diligence,  and  completed  it  within  the  too  short 
period  of  a  few  months — by  February,  15 16.  The 
work  was  immediately  published,  and  thus  the  original 
text  of  the  New  Testament  was,  for  the  first  time, 
-given  to  the  world. 

No  small  eagerness  would,  naturally,  be  shown  by 
scholars  to  possess  the  sacred  text.  Accordingly,  we 
find  that  the  demand  was,  for  those  days,  great.  The 
first  edition  of  Erasmus  was  reprinted,  with  corrections 
amounting  to  about  200,  by  Aldus,  at  Venice,  in  15 18. 
A  second  edition,  with  more  than  300  improvements, 
was  issued  by  Erasmus  himself  in  15 19.  This  was 
followed  by  a  third  edition  in  1522,  chiefly  remarkable 
as    containing,  for    the    first    time,  the   famous  text 


38  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

I  John  V.  7.  Erasmus  had  not  till  now  seen  the  Com- 
plutenslan  edition,  but  he  was  able  to  avail  himself  of 
it  in  the  preparation  of  his  own  fourth,  which  came 
out  in  1527.  He  died  in  1536,  having  issued  a  fifth 
edition  in  the  previous  year,  differing  only  in  four 
places  from  the  preceding.  The  fourth  edition  of 
Erasmus  is  thus  the  most  important,  and  became  the 
basis  of  all  subsequent  texts,  until  what  is  known  as 
the  "  Received  Text "  was  formed. 

After -the  death  of  Erasmus  an  edition  of  the 
Greek  New  Testament  was  published  by  Colinaeus  at 
Paris  in  1543.  But,  although  this  edition  was  cor- 
rected in  more  than  a  hundred  places  from  the 
authority  of  additional  manuscripts,  it  may  be  left  out 
of  account  as  having  exercised  little  subsequent 
influence.  The  true  successor  of  Erasmus  in  this 
department  was  Robert  Stephens  the  famous  Parisian 
printer.  He  issued  two  editions  in  1546  and  1549, 
having  availed  himself  in  these  of  some  manuscripts  in 
the  Royal  Library,  and  ot  the  Complutensian  text. 
But  his  great  edition  was  the  third,  issued  in  1550. 
This  edition  is  remarkable  as  containing  the  first 
collection  of  various  readings,  amounting,  it  has  been 
reckoned,  to  2,194.  But  though  these  had  been 
collected  from  a  considerable  number  of  manuscripts, 
no  critical  use  was  made  of  them.  The  text  of 
Erasmus  was  closely  followed,  and  readings  found  in 


The  English  New  Testament.  39 

it  were  even  dung  to  when  opposed  to  the  authority 
of  all  the  manuscripts.  The  fourth  edition  of 
Stephens  was  published  at  Geneva  in  155 1.  In  this 
edition  the  New  Testament  is,  for  the  first  time, 
divided  into  veises — an  invention  of  Stephens.  The 
text  remained  the  same  as  in  the  previous  edition. 

Beza,  the  Reformer,  next  appears  as  an  editor  of 
the  Greek  New  Testament.  He  published  five 
editions,  the  first  in  1565,  the  second  in  1576,  the 
third  in  1582,  the  fourth  in  1589,  and  the  fifth  in 
1598.  These  editions  varied  somewhat  among  them- 
selves, but  were  based  throughout  upon  the  text  of 
Stephens. 

And  now  we  have  reached  the  interesting  and 
important  point  of  this  sketch,  as  the  history  of  the 
printed  text  of  the  New  Testament  just  given  has  led 
us  very  near  the  date  at  which  the  Authorised  Eng- 
lish Version  began  to  be  made.  It  was  commenced 
about  1604,  when  the  above-named  Greek  texts  were, 
in  one  form  or  another,  generally  circulated.  Which 
of  them,  we  ask  with  eagerness,  formed  the  original 
from  which  our  common  English  translation  was 
derived  ?  To  this  question  the  answer  is,  that  Beza's 
edition  of  1589  was  the  one  usually  followed.  It  had 
been  based  on  Stephens's  edition  of  1550,  and  that 
again  had  been  derived  from  the  fourth  edition  of 
Erasmus,  published  in  1527.     Such  is  the  parentage 


40  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

of  the  Authorised  Version — Beza,  Stephens,  Erasmus. 
What  manuscript  authority,  let  us  ask,  is  thus  repre- 
sented ? 

Beginning  with  Erasmus,  we  find  that  his  resources 
were  meagre  indeed,  and  that  even  the  materials 
which  he  had  were  not  fully  utilised.  It  has  already 
been  noticed  how  hastily  his  first  edition  was  pre- 
pared; indeed,  he  himself  said  of  it  that  it  "was  rather 
tumbled  headlong  into  the  world  than  edited."  The 
manuscripts  which  he  had  in  his  possession  are  still 
preserved,  one  having  been  recovered  some  years  ago 
after  long  being  lost.  Some  of  them  bear  in  them- 
selves the  corrections  which  he  made,  and  show  too 
obvious  marks  of  having  been  used  as  "  copy  "  by  the 
printer.  They  consisted  of  the  following.  In  the 
Gospels  he  principally  used  a  Cursive  manuscript  of 
the  fifteenth  or  sixteenth  century.  This  may  still  be 
seen  at  Basle,  and  is  admitted  by  all  to  be  of  a  very 
inferior  character.  He  also  possessed  another  Cursive 
manuscript  of  the  twelfth  century,  or  earlier,  and 
occasionally  referred  to  it.  But  though  this  is  an 
excellent  manuscript  in  the  Gospels — one  of  the  very 
best  of  the  Cursives — Erasmus  was  ignorant  of  its 
value,  and  made  little  use  of  it.  In  the  Acts  and 
Epistles  he  chiefly  followed  a  Cursive  manuscript  of 
the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth  century,  with  occasional 
reference  to  another  of  the  fifteenth  century.     Both 


The  English  New  Testament.  41 

these  were  of  the  ordinary  type  usually  exhibited  by 
the  later  manuscripts.  For  the  Apocalypse  he  had 
only  one  mutilated  manuscript.  He  had  thus  no 
documentary  materials  for  publishing  a  complete 
edition  of  the  Greek  Testament.  The  consequence 
would  have  been  that  some  verses  must  have  been 
left  wanting  had  not  Erasmus  taken  the  Vulgate  and 
conjecturally  re-translated  the  Latin  into  Greek. 
Hence  has  arisen  the  remarkable  fact  that  in  the  text 
from  which  our  Authorised  Version  was  formed,  and 
in  the  ordinary  uncritical  editions  of  the  Greek  cur- 
rent at  the  present  day,  there  were,  and  are,  words  in 
the  professed  original  for  which  no  Divine  authority 
can  be  pleaded,  but  which  are  entirely  due  to  the 
learning  and  imagination  of  Erasmus. 

As  stated  above,  he  availed  himself  of  the  Com- 
plutensian  text  to  some  extent  in  his  subsequent 
editions.  Scholars  have  been  unable  to  ascertain 
with  exactness  the  manuscripts  which  were  employed 
in  its  formation.  It  was  at  one  time  thought  that  the 
famous  Codex  B  was  one  of  them.  But  this  has 
been  clearly  disproved,  and  the  manuscript  authority 
on  which  it  was  based  has  been  shown  by  internal 
evidence  to  have  been  not  ancient,  but  modern. 
There  is  also  some  ground  for  suspecting  that  the 
editors  occasionally,  though  rarely,  allowed  an  undue 
influence  to  the  Latin  Vulgate.     In  printing  the  Old 


42  Companion  to  the  Ransed  Version  of 

Testament  they  gave  the  place  of  honour  in  the 
centre  to  the  Latin,  surrounding  it  on  either  side  by  the 
original  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint  translation.  On 
this  they  make  the  curious  and  somewhat  suggestive 
remark,  that  the  Latin  thus  placed  was  like  Christ 
crucified  between  the  two  thieves  !  The  one  thief 
was  the  Greek  Church,  which  they  regarded  as  here- 
tical ;  and  the  other  was  the  nation  of  the  Jews,  who 
were  charged  with  having  corrupted  the  Hebrew  text 
wherever  it  differed  from  the  Latin. 

Stephens,  who  succeeded  Erasmus  in  the  work  of 
editing  the  Greek  Testament,  had,  as  we  have  seen,  a 
number  of  additional  manuscripts  at  his  command. 
Among  these  was  one  at  least  undoubtedly  ancient, 
Codex  D,  formerly  described.  But  he  made  very 
little  use  either  of  it  or  of  any  of  the  others  in  his 
possession.  Almost  the  only  important  departure 
which  Stephens  made  from  the  Erasmian  text  was  in 
the  Apocalypse,  in  which  book  he  took  advantage  of 
the  far  better  readings  supplied  by  the  Complutensian 
edition. 

Beza  received  from  Stephens  a  collection  of  various 
readings  derived  from  no  fewer  than  some  five-and- 
twenty  manuscripts,  but  he  made  little  or  no  critical 
use  of  them.  He  was  totally  unaware  of  the  value  of  the 
manuscript  which  bears  his  name,  and  thought  that  its 
publication  was  rather  to  be  deprecated.      He  left  the 


The  English  New  Testament.  43 

text  substantially  as  he  had  received  it  from  Stephens, 
who,  again,  for  his  part,  rarely  deserts  the  fifth  edition 
of  Erasmus. 

Thus,  then,  stood  the  text  of  the  Greek  New 
Testament  when  the  revisers  of  the  Bishops'  Bible  set 
themselves  to  form  from  it  our  present  Authorised 
English  Version.  Not  one  of  the  four  most  ancient 
manuscripts  was  then  known  to  be  in  existence.  Even 
Codex  D,  which  was  known,  had  scarcely  any  weight 
assigned  to  it,  and  the  whole  Greek  text  had  been 
based  upon  a  very  few  modern  manuscripts.  The 
ancient  versions  had  not  been  examined.  No  careful 
investigation  had  been  made  into  the  testimony  to  the 
primitive  text  borne  by  the  Fathers.  Textual  criticism 
was  still  in  its  infancy,  the  materials  for  it  had  not 
been  gathered,  the  principles  of  the  science  had  not 
been  studied,  and  the  labours  of  Mill,  Bentley, 
Griesbach,  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  and 
other  great  scholars,  to  secure  the  purity  of  the  text  of 
the  New  Testament,  were  as  yet  unheard  of,  and  only 
to  be  put  forth  in  the  course  of  many  future  genera- 
tions. 

In  these  circumstances  can  it  be  wondered  at  that 
vast  multitudes  of  changes  will  be  found  in  the  Revised 
English  Version,  owing  to  an  amended  text?  The 
wonder  really  is  that  they  are  so  few,  or,  at  least,  that 
they  are,  in  general,  of  such  small  importance.     When 


44  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

we  trace,  as  has  been  briefly  done,  the  parentage  of 
our  Enghsh  Bible,  and  when  we  see  on  what  a  slender 
basis  of  authority  it  rests,  when  we  confront  with  this 
the  enormous  wealth  of  materials  for  settling  the  true 
Greek  text  which  we  possess  at  the  present  day,  and 
the  amount  of  labour  which  has  been  expended  in 
applying  them,  we  might  well  fear  that  the  alterations 
requiring  to  be  made  in  the  Bible  with  which  we  have 
all  our  days  been  familiar  should  be  of  the  most  revo- 
lutionary character.  But,  blessed  be  God,  such  is  not 
the  case.  No  doctrine  of  the  faith  is  in  the  slightest 
degree  affected.  False  supports  of  important  doctrines 
may  be  removed,  and  true  defences  of  them  may  be 
supplied,  but  that  is  all.  The  Bible  remains,  for  all 
practical  purposes,  totally  unaffected.  That  is  one 
grand  result  of  the  labours  of  the  New  Testament 
Revision  Company,  for  which  all  English  Christians 
have  good  reason  to  be  thankful.  They  now  know  the 
utmost  that  Biblical  science  demands.  No  suspicion 
need  in  future  haunt  them  that  the  Scriptural  truths 
which  they  love  are  insecure.  These  have  been 
proved  to  rest  on  an  immovable  foundation,  and  they 
will  endure  as  long  as  the  Divine  Word  that  reveals 
them,  "  which  liveth  and  abideth  for  ever." 

But  more  than  this,  every  loyal  Christian  heart 
should  surely  rejoice  to  have  access,  in  as  pure  a  form 
as  possible,  to  the  message  sent  us  by  our  Father  in 


The  English  New  Testament.  45 

heaven.  That  is  the  great  positive  work  which  has 
been  aimed  at  by  the  New  Testament  Company,  and 
the  fulfihiient  of  which  is  presented  in  the  Revised 
Version.  English  readers  of  the  Scriptures  have  now 
the  opportunity  of  making  themselves  acquainted  with 
the  New  Testament  in  a  form  more  nearly  representing 
^the  primitive  text  than  they  ever  had  before.  IMost  of 
the  changes  made  hardly  affect  the  sense,  but  many 
even  of  these  alterations  are  highly  interesting.  Some 
few  others  are  of  great  importance,  and  will  naturally 
attract  more  attention  from  readers  of  the  Revised 
Version.  To  these  two  classes  of  changes  which  have 
been  required  by  an  amendment  of  the  text  we  shall 
advert  at  some  length  in  the  two  following  chapters. 


46  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 


CHAPTER   IV. 

EXAMPLES  OF  MINOR  CHANGES  CAUSED  BY  A  CHANGE 
OF  TEXT. 

IT  may  be  that  at  first  not  a  few  of  the  changes  or 
omissions  in  the  Revised  Version,  due  to  a  change  in 
the  original  text,  will  be  felt  disagreeable  by  the  Eng- 
lish reader.  The  old  familiar  rhythm  is  disturbed, 
and  the  ear  longs  for  the  words  to  which  it  has  been 
accustomed.  It  must  be  owned,  too,  that  there  are 
some  changes  and  omissions  due  to  the  cause  referred 
to  which  may  worthily  seem  matter  of  regret.  Thus, 
we  can  hardly  exchange  the  beautiful  precept,  "Be 
courteous,"  found  at  i  Pet.  iii.  8,  in  the  Authorised 
Version,  for  the  apparently  tamer  expression,  "humble- 
minded,"  in  the  Revised  Version,  without  feeling  that 
some  loss  has  been  incurred.  And  we  cannot  read 
Mark  ix.  3,  or  Mark  ix.  24,  without  wishing  that  the 
words  "  as  snow  "  and  "  with  tears,"  which  add  to  the 
graphic  style  of  the  narrative,  had  been  retained.  In 
the  majority  of  cases,  however,  the  changes  caused 
by  a  change  of  text,  will,  on  consideration,  commend 
themselves  as  improvements.  They  will  be  found  to 
impart  greater  clearness,  terseness,  or  force,  to  the 


The  English  New  Testament.  47 

Version.  Thus,  there  is  a  vividness  at  Mark  i.  27, 
"And  they  were  all  amazed,  insomuch  that  they 
questioned  among  themselves,  saying,  What  is  this  ? 
a  new  teaching !  with  authority  he  commandeth  even 
the  unclean  spirits,  and  they  obey  him,"  which  does 
not  belong  to  the  Authorised  Version.  Thus,  again,  it 
will  be  felt  to  be  with  the  remarkable  variation 
which  occurs  at  2  Cor.  i.  20,  where  we  read  in  the 
Revised  Version,  "For  how  many  soever  be  the 
promises  of  God,  in  him  is  the  yea :  wherefore  also 
through  him  is  the  Amen,  unto  the  glory  of  God  through 
us."  As  has  been  well  observed,  the  "7m "  here 
"  denotes  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  on  the  part 
of  God,  and  '  Amen '  the  recognition  and  thanksgiving 
on  the  part  of  the  Church,  a  distinction  which  is 
obliterated  by  the  received  reading."  *  So,  at  i  John 
V.  13,  it  is  an  obvious  gain  to  get  rid  of  the  clumsy 
and  almost  absurd  repetition  which  occurs  in  the 
Authorised  Version,  and  to  read  simply,  "These 
things  have  I  written  unto  you,  that  ye  may  know 
ye  have  eternal  life,  unto  you  that  believe  on  the 
name  of  the  Son  of  God."  But  whether  the  true  read- 
ings be  deemed  improvements  or  not,  they  should 
always  be  welcomed  simply  on  the  ground  of  their 
genuineness.  To  find  out  what  is  true  is  the  supreme 
object  of  Biblical  science  ;  and  while,  no  doubt,  there 
*  Lightfoot,  On  a  Fresh  Revision  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  32. 


48  Compajiion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

may  often  seem  an  artificial  attractiveness  about  what 
is  erroneous,  there  should  always  be  felt  a  sovereign 
majesty  in  truth. 

With  these  remarks,  let  us  look  at  some  of  the 
minor  changes  which  have  been  made  in  the  Revised 
Version  owing  to  a  change  of  text.  I  shall  first  take 
a  few  from  each  of  the  Gospels,  and  then  some  from 
the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament 

St.  Matthew's  Gospel.  At  chap.  v.  22,  the  Revised 
Version  omits  the  words  "  without  a  cause."  The 
evidence  from  manuscripts,  versions,  and  Fathers,  is 
here  not  quite  conclusive,  but  the  internal  evidence 
is  clear.  It  is  obvious  that  a  strong  temptation  pre- 
sented itself  to  transcribers  to  insert  the  words,  in 
order  to  soften  the  apparent  harshness  of  the  precept, 
whereas,  had  they  existed  in  the  primitive  text,  it  is 
scarcely  possible  to  account  for  their  having  been 
dropped.  There  is  little,  if  any,  doubt,  therefore,  that 
they  ought  to  disappear.  At  chap.  xrni.  17  we  read  y  1  ^ 
in  the  Revised  Version,  "  Why  askest  thou  me  of  that 
which  is  good  ?  One  there  is  who  is  good :  but  if 
thou  wouldest  enter  into  life,  keep  the  command- 
ments." The  external  evidence  is  decidedly  in  favour 
of  this  reading,  embracing,  as  it  does,  k,  B,  D,  &c., 
but  it  is  the  internal  evidence  which  is  conclusive. 
We  formerly  saw  how  prone  copyists  were  to  conform 
parallel  passages,  and  here  St.  Matthew's  text,  as  re- 


The  E7tglish  New  Testament.  49 

presented  in  the  Authorised  Version,  has  been  harmo- 
nised with  those  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke.  Besides 
the  question  of  the  young  ruler,  "  What  good  thing 
shall  I  do  ?  "  is  aptly  answered  by  the  words,  "  Why 
askest  thou  me  of  that  which  is  good?"  At  chaiit 
XXV.  6  we  read  in  the  Revised  Version,  "  But  at  mid- 
night a  cry  is  made,  Behold  the  bridegroom  :  come 
ye  forth  to  meet  him."  The  word  "cometh"is  omitted 
on  overwhelming  authority ;  it  had  evidently  slipped 
in  as  a  supplement  from  the  working  of  the  mind  ot 
the  transcriber  on  the  passage  before  him. 

St.  Mark's  Gospel.  At  chap.  vi.  20  we  read  in 
the  Revised  Version,  *'  Herod  feared  John,  knowing 
that  he  was  a  just  man  and  a  holy,  and  kept  him  safe ;  V  \ 
and  when  he  heard  him,  he  was  much  perplexed,  and  /-  - 
heard  him  gladly."  Here  the  common  reading,  "And 
did  many  things,"  is  undoubtedly  supported  by  many 
of  the  best  authorities ;  but  the  case  is  such  that  we 
cannot  conceive  of  the  unusual  Greek  word  for  "  per- 
plexed "  being  substituted  for  the  very  common  word 
for  "  did,"  while  the  converse  supposition  that  a  tran- 
scriber here  meeting  with  an  unfamiliar  expression 
changed  it  into  one  with  which  he  was  well  acquainted, 
is  easy  and  natural.  At  chap.  ix.  22,  23,  we  read  in 
the  Revised  Version,  "  If  thou  canst  do  anything,  have 
compassion  on  us,  and  help  us.  And  Jesus  said  unto 
him,  If  thou  canst !  all  things  are  possible  to  him  that 
£ 


5©  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

believeth."  This  is  a  beautiful  emendation.  Jesus 
takes  up  the  doubting  words  of  the  father,  and,  after 
repeating  them,  adds  that  strong  assertion  of  the 
power  of  faith  which  follows.  The  change  is  abundantly- 
supported  by  ancient  authority ;  and  it  is  obvious  that 
the  enfeebling  "believe"  of  the  common  text  has 
somehow  slipped  in  as  a  supplement. 

St.  Luke's  Gospel.  At  chap.  xvi.  9  we  find  the 
interesting  change  of  "  it "  for  "  ye,"  and  read  in  the 
Revised  Version,  "  Make  to  yourselves  friends  out  of 
the  mammon  of  unrighteousness,  that,  when  it  shall 
fail,  they  (the  friends  whom  you  have  thus  made)  may 
receive  you  into  the  eternal  tabernacles."  At  chap, 
xxiv.  17  a  somewhat  different  turn  is  given  to  the 
narrative  by  the  insertion  of  a  Greek  verb  in  the  text, 
and  we  read  thus  in  the  Revised  Version,  "  What 
communications  are  these  that  ye  have  one  with 
another  as  ye  walk?  And  they  stood  still,  looking 
sad."  Again,  at  verse  46  of  the  same  chapter,  the 
proper  reading  is,  "  Thus  it  is  written  that  the  Christ 
should  suffer,"  the  common  text  having  been  derived 
from  verse  26,  according  to  a  process  famihar  to 
transcribers. 

St.  John^s  Gospel.  At  chap.  vi.  1 1  we  find  in  the 
common  text  an  obvious  case  of  accommodation  to 
the  parallel  passage  in  Matt.  xiv.  19,  and  the  verse 
properly  runs  as  in  the  Revised  Version,  "Jesus  there- 


The  Efiglish  New  Testament.  51 

fore  took  the  loaves,  and  having  given  thanks,  he  dis- 
tributed to  them  that  were  set  down/'  At  chap.  xiii. 
24  we  have  in  the  Revised  Version  a  characteristic 
utterance  of  St.  Peter  which  is  lost  in  the  ordinary 
text.  He  seems  to  have  imagined  that  John,  as 
specially  the  confidant  of  Christ,  would  know  what 
the  disciples  wished  to  ascertain,  and  exclaimed,  "  Tell 
us  who  it  is  of  whom  he  speaketh."  At  chap.  xx.  16 
the  amended  text  has  restored  the  expression  •'  in  the 
Hebrew  tongue,"  which,  by  the  exception  which  it 
specially  marks  out,  serves  to  indicate  the  language 
generally  made  use  of  in  public  intercourse  by  Christ 
and  His  disciples. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  At  chap.  xv.  23  we 
find  an  interesting  example  of  the  alteration  which 
may  take  place  in  the  meaning  from  a  very  slight 
change  in  the  text.  The  words  "  and  the  "  are  simply 
omitted,  and  we  then  read,  "  The  apostles  and  the 
elder  brethren,"  instead  of  "  The  apostles,  and  the 
elders,  and  the  brethren."  At  chap.  xvi.  7  we  find 
an  exception  to  the  general  rule  that  a  shorter  reading 
is  to  be  preferred  to  a  longer,  for  the  true  text  un- 
doubtedly is,  "  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  suffered  them  not." 
At  chap,  xviii.  5  we  find  a  striking  illustration  of  the 
tendency  to  replace  what  was  unusual  or  not  under- 
stood by  what  was  common  and  familiar ;  for 
"  Paul  was   pressed  in  the  spirit "  has   there  taken 

£  2 


52  ComJ>anmt  io  the  Revised  Version  of 

the  place  of  the  true  text,  "  Paul  was  constrained  by 
the  word." 

The  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  A  very  remarkable 
change  has  been  made  at  chap.  iv.  19.  In  accordance 
with  all  the  great  Uncials,  the  negative  in  the  verse  is 
omitted,  so  as  to  read,  "  he  considered  his  own  body 
now  become  dead,"  the  point  being  that,  though  he 
fully  took  into  account  his  own  state,  yet  he  did  not 
stumble  at  the  Divine  promise.  At  chap.  v.  i,  after 
long  hesitation,  criticism  has  clearly  decided  that 
instead  of  "  we  have,"  the  true  reading  is  "  let  us 
have."  The  text  of  B  in  this  passage  is  now  certainly 
known  to  be  in  favour  of  that  which  stands  in  the 
Revised  Version,  and  it  is  supported  by  A,  C,  D,  k, 
the  most  important  versions,  and  many  of  the  Fathers. 
At  chap.  vii.  6  a  reading  was  introduced  by  Beza  into 
his  third  edition,  which  was  a  mere  conjecture  of  his 
own,  and  is  supported  by  not  a  single  manuscript  or 
version.  It  stands,  however,  in  the  common  English 
Bible,  which  translates  it,  "  that  being  dead  wherein 
we  were  held,"  instead  of  the  true  text  as  rendered  in 
the  Revised  Version,  "  having  died  to  that  wherein  we 
were  holden."  At  chap.  xvi.  5  we  should  certainly 
read  "  the  first  fruits  of  Asia,"  instead  of  "  the  first 
fruits  of  Achaia,"  the  mistaken  reading  having  probably 
arisen  from  the  transcriber  having  i  Cor.  xvi.  15  in 
his  mind. 


The  English  New  Testament  53 

The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  The  most 
interesting  changes  in  this  Epistle  are  those  which 
have  been  made  in  the  eleventh  chapter,  which  con- 
tains an  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Sapper.  At  ver.  24  the  words  *' Take,  eat,"  have 
been  omitted,  as  having  scarcely  a  shadow  of 
authority.  They  were  doubdess  interpolated  from 
Matt.  xxvi.  26.  In  the  same  verse  the  word  "broken" 
is  also  left  out;  it  was  probably  a  supplement  intro- 
duced by  the  copyists.  In  ver.  26  "  this  cup " 
becomes  "  the  cup "  in  the  Revised  Version ;  the 
common  text  was  due  to  a  desire  for  uniformity 
in  the  two  clauses.  In  ver.  29  the  word  translated 
"unworthily"  has  been  omitted  as  certainly  spurious; 
it  was  brought  in  from  ver.  27,  where  it  is  as  certainly 
genuine.  At  chap.  xiii.  3  a  various  reading  occurs, 
which,  though  very  properly  not  placed  in  the  text, 
will  be  found  in  the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version  as 
having  very  great  support  from  excellent  authorities. 
It  deserves  notice  as  illustrating  how  one  Greek  word 
might  be  mistaken  for  another  which  it  closely  re- 
sembled. Here  a  difference  of  only  a  single  letter 
leads  to  the  so  great  difference  of  rendering  in 
English,  as,  "that  I  may  be  burned,"  and  "that  I 
may  glory."* 

The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Cori?ithians.      There  are 
•  The  two  Greek  words  are  KavOrjffcofiai  and  Kavx^ffc^iiau. 


54  Co7npanion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

no  very  noticeable  alterations  made  in  this  Epistle 
owing  to  a  change  of  text.  Perhaps  the  most  inter- 
esting is  at  chap.  xii.  19,  where  quite  a  different  turn 
is  given  to  the  passage  in  the  Revised  Version,  in 
consequence  of  one  word  being  altered  in  the  original. 
The  Apostle  knew  well  that  his  elaborate  vindication 
of  himself  might  be  misunderstood  by  the  Corinthians, 
as  if  he  were  anxious  to  gain  their  favourable  judgment 
on  his  conduct,  and  to  meet  this  mistake  he  says : — 
*'  Ye  think  all  this  time  that  we  are  excusing  ourselves 
unto  you.  In  the  sight  of  God  speak  we  in  Christ. 
But  all  things,  beloved,  are  for  your  edifying." 

The  Epistles  to  the  Galatians^  Ephesians,  Philippians^ 
Colossiafis,  At  Gal.  iv.  14  a  new  turn  is  given  to  the 
passage  by  the  pronoun  being  changed  in  the  original. 
St.  Paul,  instead  of  there  speaking  of  "  7ny  temptation," 
says,  "that  which  was  a  temptation  to  you  in  my  flesh 
ye  despised  not  nor  rejected,"  surely  far  more  in  accord- 
ance with  the  context.  At  Eph.  v.  29  we  get  rid  in 
the  Revised  Version  of  the  strange  declaration,  "of 
his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones,"  and  read  simply,  in 
accordance  with  the  true  text,  "  we  are  members  of  his 
body."  At  Philipp.  i.  16,  17,  the  two  verses  must,  by 
overwhelming  authority,  be  transposed,  and  read  as  in 
the  Revised  Version.  At  Col.  ii.  18  we  come  upon 
a  v^ssage  presenting  great  difficulty  both  as  to  the 
t/  e  text  and  the  right  interpretation.     But  evidence 


TJie  English  Neiu  Testament  55 

leads  us  clearly  to  reject  the  "not"  found  before 
*'seen"  in  the  common  text.  The  Apostle  is  blaming 
those  who  dwell  in  the  region  of  sense  rather  than 
that  of  faith,  and  this  is  the  meaning  given  to  his 
words  in  the  Revised  Version.  It  is  evident  that  the 
ancient  copyists  did  not  understand  the  passage,  and 
that  the  insertion  of  the  negative  was  due  to  their 
desire  of  making  it,  as  they  thought,  intelligible. 

The  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  and  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.  Few  changes  worth  notice  have  been  made 
in  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  on  account  of  a 
change  of  text.  It  may  be  noted,  however,  that  the 
usual  designation  of  our  Saviour  in  these  Epistles  is 
"our  Lord  Jesus,"  and  not  "our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
See  I  Thess.  ii.  19,  iii.  11,  iii.  13  ;  2  Thess.  i.  12  (first 
clause) ;  and  compare  ii.  8  in  the  Revised  Version. 
The  full  title  occurs  at  i  Thess.  i.  i,  v.  28,  2  Thess. 
i.  2,  &c.,  but  the  shorter  form  seems  characteristic  of 
these  Epistles.  On  the  other  hand,  "  Christ  Jesus," 
and  not  "Jesus  Christ,"  appears  as  the  favourite 
appellation  for  our  Lord  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles. 
Compare  with  Authorised  Version  i  Tim.  iv.  6,  v.  21, 
2  Tim.  i.  r,  ii.  3,  Tit.  i.  4,  in  the  Revised  Version. 
It  deserves  in  this  connection  to  be  noticed  further 
that  the  two  versions  are  coincident  in  the  use  of  the 
form  "Christ  Jesus"  in  the  following  passages  :  i  Tim. 
i.  12,  i.  14,  ii.  5,  iii.  13,  vi.  13;  2  Tim.  i.  i   (second 


56  Companion  to  Vie  Revised  Version  of 

clause),  i.  2,  i.  9,  i.  13,  ii.  i,  ii.  10,  iii.  12,  iii. 
15.  The  title  "Christ  Jesus"  thus  seems  in  its  very 
frequent  use  a  marked  peculiarity  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  and  serves  as  a  sort  of  ?iexus  to  bind  them  all 
together. 

The  Epistle  to  Phileuion  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  Almost  the  only  changes  of  any  interest 
in  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  are  at  ver.  2,  where  we 
read,  "and  to  Apphia  our  sister,"  for  "and  to  our 
beloved  Apphia,''  the  epithet  "  beloved "  having 
apparently  been  substituted  to  correspond  to  ver.  i  ; 
and  "I  had,"  for  "we  have,"  in  ver.  7,  in  which  some 
critics  also  read  "grace"  instead  of  "joy,"  but  with- 
out sufficient  authority.  At  Heb.  iv.  2  overwhelming 
critical  evidence  compels  us  to  accept  the  somewhat 
strange  rendering  of  the  Revised  Version.  Many 
critics  of  high  name  have  been  tempted  to  abide  by 
the  apparently  far  simpler  and  more  satisfactory 
reading  which  is  represented  in  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion ;  but  faithfulness  to  the  laws  of  evidence  and 
grammar  will  not  permit  of  such  a  course.  At  chap. 
X.  34,  the  personal  reference  to  the  writer  of  the 
Epistle  is  exchanged  for  the  general  reference  to 
"  them  that  were  in  bonds,"  and  this  change  has  an 
important  bearing  on  the  very  difficult  question  of 
authorship.  At  chap.  xi.  13  the  Greek  words 
rendered   "  and  were  persuaded  of  them "  have  no 


The  English  New  Testament.  57 

right  whatever  to  a  place  in  the  text.  The  beautiful 
and  exact  rendering  of  the  original  here  given  in  the 
Revised  Version  will  be  noticed  afterwards,  when  we 
come  to  treat  of  mistakes  of  translation  in  the 
Authorised  Version. 

The  Catholic  Epistles.  In  the  Epistle  of  James 
the  remarkable  change  which  is  found  in  the  Revised 
Version  at  chap.  i.  19  is  due  to  the  change  of  a  single 
letter  in  the  Greek.*  The  evidence  is  decisive ;  and 
the  principle  here  applies  that  a  more  difficult  reading 
is  to  be  preferred  to  one  that  is  easy  and  frequent. 
In  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  at  chap.  ii.  21,  the  con- 
fusion of  the  pronouns  found  in  the  Authorised  Version, 
which  reads,  "  Christ  also  suffered  for  ?/^,  leaving  us 
an  example,  that  ye  should  follow  his  steps,"  is,  by 
a  change  of  text,  escaped  in  the  Revised  Version. 
The  change  made  at  2  Pet.  iii.  2,  which  cannot  fail  to 
strike  the  reader,  has  the  sanction  of  all  the  great 
Uncials,  and  of  the  best  versions.  In  like  manner 
the  insertion  of  the  words  "and  we  are,"  in  i  John  iii. 
I,  rests  on  the  most  decisive  manuscript  and  Patristic 
authority.  In  2  John  ver.  8  the  confusion  of  pro- 
nouns again  found  in  the  Authorised  Version  is  by  a 
change  of  text  corrected  in  the  Revised  Version.  In 
3  John  ver.  12  the  glaring  incongruity  of  addressing 
in  the  plural  Gaius,  to  whom  the  Epistle  is  addressed, 
*  The  two  Greek  words  are  tar^  and  ScTe, 


58  Compatiion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

is  removed  by  the  adoption  of  the  correct  reading, 
*'thoii  knowest."  In  the  Epistle  of  Jude  ver.  i, 
through  a  mistake  of  one  Greek  word  for  another,* 
there  is  read  in  the  Authorised  Version,  "  sanctified 
by  God  the  Father,"  instead  of  ^^  beloved  in  God  the 
Father." 

The  Apocalypse,  As  might  be  inferred  from  what 
has  been  said  in  the  preceding  chapter  the  text  of  the 
Book  of  Revelation  on  which  the  Authorised  Version 
rests  was  of  the  most  unsatisfactory  character. 
Accordingly,  numerous  corrections  of  the  original 
have  led  to  change  in  the  Revised  Version.  One  of 
the  most  important  of  these  alterations  is  found  at 
chap.  xvii.  8.  The  Authorised  Version  refers  at  the 
close  of  this  verse  to  "  the  beast,  that  was,  and  is  not, 
and  yet  is  " — truly  an  enigmatical  declaration — but  by 
substitution  of  the  true  text  we  attain  to  the  more 
intelligible  statement  which  the  reader  will  here  find 
in  the  Revised  Version.  Some  interesting  changes 
have  also  been  made  in  the  concluding  chapter  of  the 
Book.  Thus,  in  the  third  clause  of  the  eleventh  verse 
a  very  puzzling  reading  of  the  common  text — which, 
by  the  way,  ought  not  to  be  rendered  as  in  the 
Authorised  Version,  but  can  only  mean,  "let  him  he 
justified  still" — has   been    exchanged  for  one  which 

*  The  two  words  which  have  been  confounded  are  r)yaT7]jii€uois 
and  ijyiaa-jxeuois. 


The  English  New  Testament.  59 

yields  a  plain  and  satisfoctory  sense — "  let  him  do 
righteousness  still."  And  in  the  fourteenth  ver^e, 
instead  of  these  words  of  the  Authorised  Version, 
*'  Blessed  are  they  that  do  his  commatidnwits,  that 
they  may  have  right  to  the  tree  of  life,  and  may  enter 
in  through  the  gates  into  the  city,"  we  must  read,  far 
more  in  accordance  with  the  analogy  of  Scripture, 
*'  Blessed  are  they  that  wash  their  robes,  that  they 
may  have  the  right  to  come  to  the  tree  of  life,  and 
may  enter  in  by  the  gates  into  the  city." 


6o  'Compaftion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 


CHAPTER  V. 

MORE   IMPORTANT    CHANGES    DUE    TO    A   CHANGE 
OF   TEXT. 

Probably  the  first  great  change  which  will  strike  the 
reader  of  the  Revised  Version  is  the  entire  omission 
of  the  doxology  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  at  Matt.  vi.  13. 
The  reasons  for  this  omission  are  conclusive.  First, 
the  clause  is  not  found  in  any  of  the  great  Uncials,  x, 
B,  D,  which  contain  the  passage.  Secondly,  it  is 
not  noticed  by  the  earliest  Fathers  in  their  expositions 
of  the  Lord's  Prayer.  True,  Chrysostom  and  others 
recognise  it  in  the  fourth  century,  but  this  cannot 
outweigh  the  fact  that  it  is  wholly  unnoticed  by 
Origen  in  the  third.  The  internal  evidence,  too,  is 
somewhat  against  it,  as  an  interruption  of  the  context. 
There  is,  indeed,  one  weighty  argument  in  its  favour. 
It  is  found  in  most  of  the  ancient  versions,  such  as 
the  ^Ethiopic,  the  Armenian,  the  Gothic,  and,  above 
all,  the  Syriac.  Versions,  it  is  obvious,  are  far  more 
valuable  as  witnesses  to  the  existence  of  clauses  than 
they  can  be  in  regard  to  individual  words.  And 
could  we  be  sure  that  the  doxology  existed  from  the 
first  in  such  an  ancient  version  as  the  Peshito  Syriac, 


'The  English  Nctv  Testament.  6i 

its  genuineness  would  perhaps  no  longer  be  disputed. 
But,  as  was  formerly  remarked,  we  cannot  insist  on 
the  authority  of  the  Syriac  in  support  of  the  passage. 
This  is  felt  all  the  more  from  the  varying  form  which 
is  presented  by  the  doxology  in  the  Curetonian 
version,  which  omits  altogether  the  words  "  and  the 
power."  Besides,  it  does  not  exist  in  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  a  very  important  witness.  Upon  the  whole, 
criticism  must  pronounce  decidedly  against  the  clause 
as  forming  part  of  the  original  text;  and  it  is, 
accordingly,  not  admitted  into  the  Revised  Version. 

Mark  xvi.  9 — 20.  The  reader  will  be  struck  by 
the  appearance  which  this  long  paragraph  presents  in 
the  Revised  Version.  Although  inserted,  it  is  marked 
off  by  a  considerable  space  from  the  rest  of  the 
Gospel.  A  note  is  also  placed  on  the  margin  con- 
taining a  brief  explanation  of  this,  but  it  may  be  well 
here  to  say  something  more  respecting  such  an  impor- 
tant section  of  the  Evangelical  history.  The  case, 
then,  stands  as  follows.  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
there  is  something  peculiar  about  the  paragraph.  We 
find  that  it  has  no  place  in  x,  B,  the  two  oldest  manu- 
scripts in  our  possession.  It  is  true  that  the  writer  of 
B  has  left  a  blank  space  at  the  end  of  St.  Mark's 
Gospel,  clearly  indicating  that  he  knew  of  something 
more  that  iJiight  be  inserted,  but  the  fact  remains  that 
he  did  not  insert  it.    Again,  as  Tregelles  has  remarked, 


62  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

"Eusebius,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Victor  of  Antioch, 
Severus  of  Antioch,  Jerome,  as  well  as  other  writers, 
especially  Greeks,  testify  that  these  verses  were  not 
written  by  St.  Mark,  or  not  found  in  the  best  copies/'  * 
Moreover,  it  must,  I  think,  be  admitted  that  the 
style  of  the  passage  is  not  that  of  the  Evangelist. 
Not  only  are  there  seventeen  words  in  the  compass  of 
only  twelve  verses  which  are  nowhere  else  made  use 
of  by  St.  Mark,  but  the  general  complexion  of  the 
paragraph  is  unlike  that  of  the  gospel.  This  much 
may  be  urged  against  the  genuineness.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  in  support  of  it  we  are  told  to  reflect  how 
improbable  it  is  that  a  writer  of  the  Gospel  history 
would  abruptly  end  his  narrative  with  the  statement 
contained  in  verse  8.  That  may  be  admitted,  and 
yet  there  may  have  been  circumstances  unknown  to 
us  that  compelled  the  author  to  make  such  a  sudden 
termination.  How  many  works  might  be  referred  to, 
such  as  Macaulay's  "  History  of  England,"  which 
close  abrupdy,  for  the  too-sufficient  reason  that  death 
arrested  the  pen  of  the  writer  !  But  again  it  is 
argued  that  Irenaeus  quotes  the  passage,  without  the 
slightest  misgiving,  in  the  second  century.  True,  and 
that  is  most  weighty  proof  of  the  authority  assigned  to 
the  passage  even  from  the  earliest  times,  but  does  by 
no  means  prove  the  authorship  of  St.  Mark.  Nor 
*  Introduction,  p.  435. 


The  English  Neio  Testauwit.  63 

can  the  evidence  of  versions  be  deemed  conclusive, 
for  reasons  which  have  been  already  stated.  On  the 
whole,  a  fair  survey  of  all  the  facts  of  the  case  seems 
to  lead  us  to  these  conclusions  :  first,  that  the  passage 
is  not  the  immediate  production  of  St,  Mark ;  and 
secondly,  that  it  is,  nevertheless,  possessed  of  full 
canonical  authority.  We  cannot  ascertain  its  author, 
but  we  are  sure  he  must  have  been  one  who  belonged 
to  the  circle  of  the  Apostles.  And,  in  accordance 
with  this  view  of  the  paragraph,  it  is  marked  otY  from 
the  words  with  which,  for  some  unknown  reason,  the 
Gospel  of  St.  J\lark  ended ;  while,  at  the  same  time, 
it  is  inserted,  without  the  least  misgiving,  as  an 
appendix  to  that  gospel  in  the  Revised  Version. 

John  vii.  53 — viii.  it.  This  section  of  the  Gospel 
narrative  stands  on  much  the  same  footing  with  that 
just  considered.  It  is  enclosed  within  brackets  in  the 
Revised  Version,  and  is  accompanied  by  an  ex- 
planatory note  on  the  margin.  More,  however,  than 
that  note  is  necessary  to  set  forth  the  real  authority 
belonging  to  the  passage.  It  is  not  found  in  any  one 
of  the  first-rate  Uncials,  nor  in  the  Syriac  and  other 
ancient  versions.  There  is  no  evidence  that  it  was 
known  to  Origen,  Chrysostom,  and  others  of  the 
early  Fathers.  It  is  obelised  as  doubtful  by  many  of 
the  manuscripts  which  contain  it.  The  texts  in  which 
it  has  come  down  to  us  vary  exceedingly  among  them- 


64  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

selves.  And,  lastly,  as  against  its  being  an  integral 
portion  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  it  has  no  connection 
with  the  context,  and  its  style  is  totally  different  from 
that  of  the  Evangelist.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  found 
in  the  ancient  Uncial  D,  though  in  a  text  which 
varies  much  from  the  received.  It  was  known  to 
St.  Jerome  in  the  fourth  century,  who  expressly 
testifies  that  it  existed  in  his  days  *'  in  many  manu- 
scripts both  Greek  and  Latin."  Augustine  about  the 
same  date  affirms  that  "  some  of  but  weak  faith,  or 
rather  enemies  of  the  true  faith,"  had  expunged  it 
from  their  copies  of  the  New  Testament,  and  adds 
that  they  did  so  with  an  ethical  purpose,  fearing  lest 
the  passage  might  seem  to  grant  impunity  to  sin. 
It  would  appear  from  Eusebius  that  even  Papias,  who 
lived  in  the  early  part  of  the  second  century,  was 
familiar  with  the  story,  though  that  of  course  does  not 
prove  that  he  knew  it  as  existing  in  St.  John's  Gospel. 
Finally,  the  narrative  itself  breathes  the  very  spirit  oi 
Christ  and  Christianity.  Now,  in  these  circumstances, 
what  judgment  can  criticism  pronounce  regarding  it  ? 
The  right  conclusion  probably  is  that  it  is  no  part  of 
St  John's  Gospel,  and  yet  is  a  perfecdy  true  narrative 
which  has  descended  to  us  from  the  Apostolic  age. 
Some  critics  think  that  its  proper  place  would  be  at 
the  end  of  Luke  xxi.,  where  it  is  really  placed  in  some 
of  the  best  of  the  Cursive  manuscripts.     Such  being 


The  English  New  Testament,  65 

the  facts  of  the  case  as  regards  this  famous  paragraph, 
it  has  properly  been  inserted  in  the  text,  but  marked 
off  from  the  context  and  enclosed  in  brackets  in  the 
Revised  Version. 

Coloss.  ii.  2.  A  very  important  departure  has  here 
been  made,  on  textual  grounds,  from  the  Autho- 
rised Version.  But,  as  the  reader  will  observe  from 
the  note  on  the  margin,  this  has  not  been  done  with 
much  confidence.  The  fact  is  that,  in  the  present 
conflicting  state  of  the  evidence^  it  is  impossible  to 
say,  with  any  approach  to  certainty,  what  was  here  the 
original  text.  There  are  many  varieties  of  reading. 
First,  we  find  the  very  short  form,  "  to  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  mystery  of  God,"  without  any  reference 
to  Christ  at  all.  Next,  we  have  "  to  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  mystery  of  God,  Christ,"  nothing  being 
interposed  between  the  words  "  God  "  and  "  Christ." 
Thirdly,  there  is  the  form,  "  to  the  acknowledgment 
of  the  mystery  of  God,  which  is  Christ."  Fourthly, 
some  good  manuscripts  read  "to  the  acknowledgment 
of  the  mystery  of  God,  the  Father  of  Christ."  And 
lastly,  there  is  the  reading  of  the  mass  of  the  Cursives 
represented  in  our  Authorised  Version,  "to  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  mystery  of  God,  and  of  the 
Father,  and  of  Christ."  The  three  last  readings  are,  by 
the  general  consent  of  criUcs,  set  aside,  as  manifest 
amplifications  of  the  original  text.  We  are,  therefore,  left 

F 


66  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

to  choose  between  the  first  and  second  forms.  Such 
choice  is  by  no  means  easy,  and  critics  are  greatly 
divided  on  the  point.  According  to  a  principle  often 
already  alluded  to,  the  shorter  form  should,  other 
things  being  equal,  obtain  the  preference.  But  in 
this  case  there  is  scarcely  equality.  The  curt  form 
"  of  God"  is  supported  only  by  one  late  Uncial,  and 
some  good  Cursives.  The  longer  form  "  of  God, 
Christ,"  has  the  weighty  authority  of  B,  and  of  Hilary 
among  the  Fathers.  The  fourth  form  mentioned  above 
is  supported  by  k.  A,  C,  and  thus  has  perhaps  more 
external  evidence  than  any  of  the  rest,  but  can  scarcely 
be  accepted  on  account  of  internal  considerations.  In 
these  circumstances,  we  conclude  with  some  confidence 
that  the  true  text  of  the  passage  is  that  represented  in 
the  Revised  Version. 

I  Ti7n.  iii.  i6.  The  English  reader  will  probably 
be  startled  to  find  that  the  familiar  text,  "  And  with- 
out controversy  great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness:  God 
was  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  has  been  exchanged  in  the 
Revised  Version  for  the  following,  "And  without 
controversy  great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness  ;  He 
who  was  manifested  in  the  flesh."  A  note  on  the 
margin  states  that  "the  word  God^  in  place  of  Z^  w//^, 
rests  on  no  sufficient  ancient  authority ;"  and  it  may 
be  well  that,  in  a  passage  of  so  great  importance,  the 
reader  should  be  convinced  that  such  is  the  case. 


The  EiigUsh  New  Testament.  67 

What,  then,  let  us  inquire,  is  the  amount  of  evidence 
which  can  be  produced  in  support  of  the  reading  "6^^^/.^'* 
This  is  soon  stated.  Not  one  of  the  early  Fathers 
can  be  certainly  quoted  for  it.  None  of  the  very 
ancient  versions  support  it.  No  Uncial  witnesses  to 
it,  with  the  doubtful  exception  of  A.  The  most  diverse 
opinions  have  been  expressed  by  critics  as  to  the 
true  text  of  this  manuscript.  To  let  the  reader  under- 
stand how  this  should  be,  it  must  be  stated  that  the 
difference  between  two  such  similar  forms  as  O  C 
and  0  Q  decides  whether  the  reading  shall  be  "  who  " 
or  "  God."  Now,  it  cannot  be  wondered  at  that  in  a 
manuscript  not  less  than  fourteen  hundred  years  old, 
it  is  difficult  to  say  whether  the  decisive  lines  exist 
or  not.  But  this  difficulty  has  been  greatly  increased 
by  an  unfortunate  attempt  to  escape  from  it  altogether. 
Some  very  orthodox  but  presumptuous  hand  has  drawn 
a  dark  line  in  the  middle  of  the  O?  so  as  to  render 
it  certain  that  ''  God ''  is  the  reading  of  the  manuscript. 
But  the  effort  must  now  be  made  to  overlook  that 
modern  touch  entirely,  and  decide  whether  or  not 
there  is  any  trace  of  an  original  line  in  the  heart  of  0- 
Hence  the  diversity  of  opinion  among  critics.  Bishop 
Ellicott  declares  for  0  C  "  indisj)ufab/y,  after  minute 
personal  inspection."^  Dr.  Scrivener,  on  the  other 
hand   says,    "  I    have    always    felt    convinced    with 

*  Comm.  on  i   Tim.,  p.  51. 
F  2 


68  Cojnpanion  to  the  Revised   Version  of 

Berriman  and  the  earlier  collators  that  Cod.  A  read 
0  C-"*  The  truth  probably  is,  that  in  the  now  worn 
condition  of  the  leaf  containing  the  passage,  it  is  im- 
possible for  any  one  by  personal  inspection  at  the 
present  day  to  determine  the  original  reading  of  the 
manuscript.  Much  weight,  however,  is  due  to  the 
opinion  of  those  who  had  an  opportunity  of  examining 
the  Codex  soon  after  it  was  brought  to  England,  and 
when  it  must  have  been  far  easier  to  decide  the 
question  at  issue.  Now,  these  appear  to  be  almost 
unanimous  that  the  reading  was  i^  C-  But  even 
granting  that  the  weighty  suffrage  of  the  Alexandrian 
manuscript  is  in  favour  of  "  God,"  far  more  evidence 
can  be  produced  in  support  of  "who."  «<  and  pro- 
bably C  witness  to  this  reading,  and  it  has  also 
powerful  testimony  from  the  versions  and  Fathers. 
Moreover,  the  relative  *'  w^ho,"  is  a  far  more  difficult 
reading  than  "God,"  and  could  hardly  have  been 
substituted  for  the  latter.  On  every  ground,  therefore, 
we  conclude  that  this  interesting  and  important 
passage  must  stand  as  it  has  been  given  in  the  Revised 
Version. 

I  Peter  \\\.  15.  The  importance  of  the  departure 
here  made  from  the  Authorised  Version  may  not  at 
first  be  obvious  to  the  reader,  but  will  become  so  on  a 
very  little  consideration.     It  amounts  to  nothing  less 

*  Introducticn,  p.  553, 


The  English  New  Testament.  69 

than  tlie  identification  of  Christ  with  Jehovah.  For, 
as  all  admit,  the  Apostle  here  borrows  his  language 
from  Isa.  viii.  13,  where  we  read  "Sanctify  the  Lord 
of  Hosts  himself"  Since,  therefore,  the  language  made 
use  of  in  the  Old  Testament  with  respect  to  Jehovah 
is  liere  applied  by  St.  Peter  to  Christ,  there  could  not 
be  a  clearer  attestation  to  the  deity  of  our  Redeemer 
than  that  which  is  furnished  by  this  passage  as  read  in 
the  Revised  Version.  And  the  necessity  of  the  change 
here  made  in  the  text  admits  of  no  question.  For  the 
reading  of  the  Authorised  Version  there  are  only  a 
few  manuscripts  and  Fathers;  while  for  that  of  the 
Revised  there  are  all  the  great  Uncials,  several  of 
the  Fathers,  and  all  the  best  versions.  This  instance 
of  clear  gain  by  rectification  of  the  text  tends  all  the 
more  to  reconcile  us  to  the  apparent  loss  which  now 
comes  to  be  mentioned. 

I  John  V.  7,  8.  The  whole  of  these  verses  bearing 
upon  what  is  known  as  "  the  heavenly  witnesses,"  has 
been  omitted  in  the  Revised  Version.  This  omission 
is  one  of  the  most  indubitable  results  of  textual 
criticism.  The  words  left  out  can  be  proved  to  have 
no  claim  whatever  to  a  place  in  the  text  of  Scripture. 
None  of  the  Uncial  manuscripts  contain  them.  None 
of  the  ancient  versions  represent  them.  None  of  the 
Fathers  quote  them,  even  when  arguing  on  the  subject 
of  the  Trinity.     There  are,  indeed,  two  passages  in 


70  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

Cyprian  which  seem  to  indicate  an  acquaintance  with 
verse  7,  but  even  though  that  be  granted,  the  fact  goes 
for  nothing  against  such  powerful  counter- evidence. 
As  was  formerly  noticed,  Erasmus  omitted  the  words 
in  his  first  two  editions.  But,  as  they  had  long  stood 
in  the  Vulgate,  he  was,  of  course,  subjected  to  much 
odium  for  so  doing.  To  disarm  his  malignant  assail- 
ants, he  promised  that  in  future  editions  he  would 
insert  the  words  if  they  were  found  in  a  single  Greek 
manuscript.  One  was  discovered  in  Britain  which  did 
contain  them,  and  therefore  Erasmus  admitted  them 
into  the  text  of  his  third  edition.  But  it  is  now  agreed 
by  all  scholars  that  the  "  British  manuscript,"  on  whose 
authority  the  words  were  inserted,  was  not  more 
ancient  than  the  fifteenth  or  sixteenth  century.  It 
once  belonged  to  a  Dr.  Montfort,  of  Cambridge,  and 
from  him  it  has  derived  its  name^  being  still  preserved 
under  the  title  of  the  Codex  Montfortia7ius  in  Trinity 
College,  Dublin.  Erasmus  himself  suspected  that  the 
disputed  words  contained  in  this  manuscript  had  been 
translated  into  Greek  from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and 
this  is  now  the  fixed  opinion  of  critics.  The  same 
thing  must  be  said  respecting  the  only  other  Greek 
manuscript  known  to  contain  the  passage.  It  belongs 
to  the  fifteenth  century,  and  is  preserved  in  the 
Vatican  library.  The  text  it  offers  varies  considerably 
in  the  verses  referred  to  from  that  of  the  manuscript 


The  English  New  Tesfamoit.  71 

already  spoken  of,  but  was  also  undoubtedly  derived 
from  the  Latin.  The  same  seems  clearly  to  have  been 
the  case  with  the  Complutensian  edition  of  the  New 
Testament.  That  contained  in  Greek  the  disputed 
w^ords,  and  Stunica,  its  leading  editor,  severely 
censured  Erasmus  for  omitting  them.  But  when  the 
great  scholar  asked  him  to  state  on  what  authority  he  had 
inserted  the  passage  in  the  text,  Stunica  appealed  only 
to  the  Vulgate.  He  maintained  that  the  Latin  repre- 
sented the  true  original  of  Scripture,  and  that  the 
Greek  copies  had  been  corrupted,  a  pretty  conclusive 
proof  that  the  words  in  question  owed  their  place  in 
his  text  not  to  their  having  been  found  in  any  Greek 
manuscripts,  but  simply  to  their  having  been  translated 
into  Greek  from  the  Vulgate. 

No  defender  of  the  genuineness  of  i  John  7,  8, 
will  probably  arise  in  the  future.  The  controversy 
regarding  the  passage  is  finished,  and  will  never  be  re- 
newed. But  the  literary  history  to  which  it  has  given 
rise  will  not  be  forgotten.  A  small  library  might  be 
formed  of  the  books  and  pamphlets  which  have  been 
written  for  or  against  the  words.  Among  the  authors 
of  these  works  some  very  celebrated  names  appear. 
That  of  the  illustrious  Sir  Isaac  Newton  has  a  place  in 
the  list.  He  wrote  against  the  genuineness  of  the 
words,  and  thus  did  good  service  in  the  cause  of  truth. 
But  by  far  the  most  memorable  event  in  this  lengthened 


72  Companion  to  Revised  Version  of  Nciv  Test  anient. 

and  often  bitter  controversy  was  the  publication  of  the 
letters  of  Professor  Porson  to  Archdeacon  Travis. 
These  letters,  by  their  acuteness  and  ability,  whatever 
may  be  thought  of  their  spirit,  virtually  settled  the 
case  against  the  genuineness  of  the  passage.  And 
although  since  then  the  voices  of  some  zealous  friends 
of  Scripture — Bishops,  Cardinals,  and  others — have 
been  unwisely  lifted  up  in  defence  of  "the  three 
heavenly  witnesses,"  yet  so  decidedly  have  the  minds 
of  all  scholars  now  been  made  up  as  to  the  spurious- 
ness  of  the  words,  that  they  have  been  omitted  in  the 
Revised  Version  without  a  line  even  on  the  margin  to 
indicate  that  they  had  ever  been  admitted  to  a  place 
in  the  sacred  text. 


PART     II 


CHANGES     ARISING     FROM    AN 
AMENDED    TRANSLATION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

CORRECTION   OF   MISTAKES    IN   THE   MEANING   OF 
GREEK   WORDS. 

There  are  not  very  many  instances  in  which  the 
Authorised  Version  has  positively  mistaken  the  import 
of  the  original.  The  translators  had  before  them  the 
labours  of  many  able  predecessors,  and  upon  the 
whole  turned  to  good  account  the  advantages  which 
they  thus  enjoyed.  Still,  there  are  cases  in  which 
they  "have  gone  quite  astray  in  the  meaning  assigned 
to  the  Greek,  and  to  the  chief  of  these  we  now  proceed 
to  direct  our  attention. 

Matt.  X.  4  and  Mark  iii.  i8.  In  these  passages 
we  read  in  the  Authorised  Version  of  "Simon  the 
Canaanitey  This  naturally  suggests  to  an  English 
reader  the  idea  that  one  of  the  Apostles  did  not 
belong  to  the  family  of  Abraham,  but  to  the  race  of 
the  Canaanites.  Such  a  notion,  however,  rests  upon 
an  utter  mistake.  The  epithet  applied  to  Simon  is 
taken  from  the  Aramaic /<7/^«,  then  commonly  spoken 
in   Palestine.       It  is  replaced   by   the   Greek    word 


76  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

meaning  "Zealot"  at  Luke  vi.  15  and  Acts  i.  13,  just 
as  the  same  Evangelist  gives  the  Greek  equivalent  at 
Luke  viii.  54  for  the  Aramaic  words  in  Mark  v.  41. 
The  meaning,  therefore,  is  that  Simon  had,  before  he 
became  a  follower  of  Christ,  belonged  to  the  Jewish 
faction  of  the  Zealots.  Accordingly,  this  explanation  • 
has  been  given  on  the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version 
at  Matt.  X.  4,  and  Mark  iii.  18,  while  Cananaean  has 
taken  the  place  of  the  erroneous  and  misleading  form 
"  Canaanite,"  in  the  text. 

Matt.  xiv.  8.  Here  we  read  in  the  Authorised 
Version,  "She,  being bcfoi'e instructed oi\\QX  mother,"  &c. 
But  it  is  certain  that  this  is  a  mistake.  The  Greek 
verb  made  use  of  has  never  any  reference  to  time,  but 
can  only  mean  "  urged  on,"  or  "  impelled."  As 
Archbishop  Trench  has  remarked,  "  We  may  conceive 
the  unhappy  girl,  with  all  her  vanity  and  levity, 
yet  shrinking  from  the  petition  of  blood  which  her 
mother  would  put  into  her  lips,  and  needing  to  be 
urged  on  or  pushed  forward  before  she  could  be 
induced  to  make  it;  and  this  is  implied  in  the 
word."*  Hence  the  rendering  "put  forward"  in  the 
"Revised  Version. 

Matt.  XV.  27.  The  Greek  will  not  here  allow  of 
the  rendering  "yet,"  which  occurs  in  the  Authorised 
Version.     And  it  completely  perverts   the  meaning. 

*  On  Authorised  Version,  p.  115, 


The  EfigHsh  New  Testament  77 

The  argument  of  the  woman  is  derived  from  tliat  very- 
appellation  which  our  Lord  had  given  her.  Granting 
its  truthfulness,  she  saw  it  opened  a  door  of  hope 
before  her,  so  that,  instead  of  being  driven  by  Christ's 
words  to  despair,  she  ventured  to  rest  her  whole  case 
upon  them,  and  exclaimed,  as  in  the  Revised  Version, 
**  Yea,  Lord,y^r  even  the  dogs  eat  of  the  crumbs  which 
fall  from  their  master's  table." 

Matt.  xxvi.  15.  An  interesting  correction  has 
been  made  in  this  verse.  We  cannot,  indeed,  affirm 
that  the  translation  "  covenanted,"  here  found 
in  the  Authorised  Version,  is  absolutely  impossible. 
But  it  entirely  breaks  the  connection  between  this 
passage  and  Zech.  xi.  12.  We  there  find  the  very 
same  Greek  verb  in  the  Septuagint  as  here  occurs 
in  the  Gospel.  The  Old  Testament  rendering  is, 
"  They  weighed  for  my  price  thirty  pieces  of  silver." 
And  so  it  should  be  here,  as  in  the  Revised 
Version,  "  They  weighed  unto  him  thirty  pieces  of 
silver." 

Mark  iv.  29.  Here  the  expression  "is  brought 
forth,"  in  the  Authorised  Version,  is  a  very  inexact 
rendering  of  the  Greek  verb.  The  proper  translation, 
"  is  ripe,"  will  be  found  in  the  text  of  the  Revised 
Version. 

Luke  iii.  23.  Here  we  find  in  the  Authorised 
Version   the   singular  statement   that  "Jesus  himself 


78  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age."  The  Greek 
gives  no  countenance  to  such  a  translation.  It  ought 
to  be  rendered  as  in  the  Revised  Version,  "And 
Jesus  himself,  when  he  began  (to  teach),  was  about 
thirty  years  of  age." 

Luke  ix.  32.  This  verse  is  quite  misrepresented  by 
the  Authorised  Version,  "But  Peter,  and  they  that 
were  with  him,  were  heavy  with  sleep  ;  and  when  they 
were  awake,  they  saw  his  glory,  and  the  two  men  that 
stood  with  him."  It  ought  to  be  rendered  as  in  the 
Revised  Version,  "But  Peter,  and  they  that  were  with 
him,  were  heavy  with  sleep  -jjet  having  remained  aiuake, 
they  saw  his  glory,  and  the  two  men  that  stood  with 
him." 

Lukey:si\\\.  12.  Here  the  word  "possess  "  in  the 
Authorised  Version  is  quite  an  impossible  rendering 
of  the  Greek.  It  ought  to  be  "  acquire  "  or  "  get,"  as 
in  the  Revised  Version.  Tithes  were  paid  not  on 
what  was  laid  up  or  possessed,  but  on  what  was  gained 
in  the  way  of  increase.  Hence  the  Pharisee  says,  "  I 
give  tithes  of  all  that  I  get." 

Lnke  xxii.  56.  The  exact  and  graphic  force  of 
the  original  is  here  missed  in  the  Authorised  Version. 
"  But  a  certain  maid  beheld  him  as  he  sat  by  the  fire : 
and  earnestly  looked  upon  him,  and  said,  This  man 
was  also  with  him."  The  real  meaning  is,  t'lat  she 
recognised  him  when  a  flash  of  the  smouldering  fire 


The  English  New  Testament.  79 

fell  upon  his  countenance.  This  is  brought  out  in  the 
Revised  Version.  *'And  a  certain  maid  seeing  him 
as  he  sat  in  the  light  (of  the  fire),  and  earnestly 
looking  upon  him,  said,  This  man  also  was  with 
him." 

LuJze  xxiv.  25.  Many  readers  must  have  been 
struck  by  the  harshness  of  the  words,  "  O  fools,"  here 
found  in  the  Authorised  Version.  Such  an  opening 
of  his  discourse  seems  quite  out  of  keeping  with  the 
tender  and  affectionate  way  in  which  Christ  dealt  with 
these  two  disciples.  No  such  incongruity  appears  in 
the  original.  It  simply  denotes  want  of  understanding 
and  reflection,  and  the  Authorised  Version  has  been 
softened  in  the  Revised  by  the  simple  emendation, 
''  O  foolish  men." 

Johii  ix.  17.  Here  the  Authorised  Version  is 
scarcely  intelligible.  "  They  say  unto  the  blind  man 
again,  What  sayest  thou  of  him,  that  he  hath  opened 
thine  eyes?"  The  meaning  is  made  plain  in  the 
Revised  Version  merely  by  inserting  "  in,"  thus — • 
*'  They  say  therefore  unto  the  blind  man  again.  What 
sayest  thou  of  him,  in  that  he  opened  thine  eyes? 
And  he  said.  He  is  a  prophet." 

John  X.  14,  15.  The  connection  between  these 
two  verses  is  totally  destroyed  in  the  Authorised 
Version,  which  runs  thus  :  "  I  am  the  good  Sheplierd, 
and  know  my  sheep,  and  am  known  of  mine.     As  the 


8o  Companion  to  the  Revised  Ve?'ston  of 

Father  knoweth  me,  even  so  know  I  the  Father; 
and  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep/'  The  verses 
should  be  read  as  in  the  Revised  Version :  "  I 
am  the  good  Shepherd,  and  I  know  mine  own,  and 
mine  own  know  me,  even  as  the  Father  knoweth  me 
and  I  know  the  Father ;  and  I  lay  down  my  life  for 
the  sheep." 

John  xi.  20.  The  supplementary  word  "still" 
here  inserted  in  the  Authorised  Version :  "  but  Mary 
sat  still  in  the  house,"  is  apt  to  produce  an  erroneous 
impression.  By  simply  transposing  it  in  the  Revised 
Version,  the  true  meaning  of  the  tense  employed  in 
the  original  is  brought  out ;  "  but  Mary  still  sat  in  the 
house." 

Ads  ii.  3.  The  Authorised  Version  is  here  quite 
wrong  :  "  And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues^ 
-like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them."  The 
symbolical  meaning  of  the  appearance  is  thus  quite 
missed.  We  must  render,  as  in  the  Revised  Version, 
*'  And  there  appeared  unto  them  tongues  parting 
asunder  (or,  parting  among  them),  like  as  of  fire,  and 
it  sat  upon  each  of  them." 

Acts  iii.  19,  20.  An  impossible  translation  here 
occurs  in  the  Authorised  Version,  in  which  we  read : 
"Repent  ye  therefore,  and  be  converted,  that  your 
sins  may  be  blotted  out,  wheji  the  times  of  refreshing 
shall  come  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord ;  and  he 


The  Endish  Neiv  Testament. 


shall  send  Jesus  Christ,  which  before  was  preached 
unto  you."  For  eschatological  reasons  it  is  most 
important  that  the  true  rendering  of  this  passage 
should  be  presented.  It  is  thus  given  in  the  Revised 
Version :  *'  Repent  ye  therefore,  and  turn  again,  that 
your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,  that  so  seasons  of  refresh- 
ing  may  come  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  ;  and 
that  he  may  send  the  Christ  who  hath  been  appointed 
for  you  (even),  Jesus." 

Acts  xxvi.  28.  It  is  with  some  reluctance  that  we 
here  abandon  the  rendering  of  the  AutlK)rised  Version, 
''''Almost  thou  persuadest  me  to  be  a  Christian." 
This  is  a  text  from  which  many  eloquent  and  edifying 
sermons  have  been  preached,  but  the  Greek  will  not 
tolerate  it.  Quite  a  different  expression  must  have 
been  used  for  "  almost ; "  and  the  true  rendering  of 
the  original,  as  it  stands,  seems  to  be  that  of  the 
Revised  Version  :  "  With  but  little  persuasion  thou 
wouldest  fain  make  me  a  Christian." 

Rom.  iii.  25.  The  Authorised  translation  of  this 
verse  is,  "  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitia- 
tion through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteous- 
ness for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through 
the  forbearance  of  God."  But,  besides  being  almost 
unintelligible,  this  is  an  utterly  impossible  version  of 
the  Greek.  The  original  can  only  be  fairly  represented 
in  some  such  translation  as  that  of  the  Revised 
G 


S2  Companioti  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

Version  :  "Whom  God  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation, 
through  faith,  by  his  blood,  to  shew  his  righteousness, 
because  of  the  passing  over  of  the  sins  done  aforetime,  in 
the  forbearance  of  God." 

Rom.  xi.  7,  25.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  Greek 
words  which  the  Authorised  Version  translates  in 
these  verses,  and  at  2  Cor.  iii.  14,  Eph.  iv.  18,  as 
"  blinded  "  and  "  blindness,"  are  in  the  Gospels  (Mark 
iii.  5,  vi.  52;  John  xii.  40)  rendered  "hardened'' 
and  "  hardness."  The  latter  is  their  proper  meaning, 
and,  as  such,  it  has  been  consistently  maintained  in 
the  Revised  Version. 

I  Cor.  iv.  4.  This  verse  stands  as  follows  in  the 
Authorised  Version,  "  For  I  know  nothing  by  myself ; 
yet  am  I  not  hereby  justified  ;  but  he  that  judgeth 
me  is  the  Lord."  As  thus  translated,  the  passage  is 
constantly  misunderstood.  Even  intelligent  readers 
imagine  that  the  Apostle  here  means  to  state  that  he 
was  dependent  for  all  the  knowledge  he  had  on  the 
favour  of  God.  But  this  is  a  total  misapprehension 
of  the  meaning.  The  true  sense  is  brought  out  in  the 
Revised  Version,  "  For  I  know  nothing  against  f?iyself; 
yet  am  I  not  hereby  justified  :  but  he  that  judgeth  me 
is  the  Lord."  This  passage  might,  perhaps,  have  been 
more  justly  classed  with  those  archaisms  which  require 
adjustment  to  present-day  usage  than  with  mistakes 
in  translation.    Yet  the  misunderstanding  of  the  words 


The  English  New  Testament.  83 

is  so  great,  that  it  seemed  important  to  notice  them 
here.  Some  have  deemed  the  expression  "  by  my- 
self" a  mere  provinciahsm,  which  was,  through  over- 
sight, admitted  into  the  Authorised  Version,  but  the 
phrase  seems  once  to  have  been  good  EngUsh.  Thus, 
"  Cranmcr  says  to  Henry  VIII.,  '  I  am  exceedingly 
sorry  that  such  faults  can  be  proved  by  the  queen,' 
that  is,  against  her."*  The  x\postle  means  that  though 
he  was  not  conscious  of  having  done  any  wrong  in 
reference  to  the  Corinthians,  yet,  after  all,  it  was  only 
God  that  could  truly  judge  and  thoroughly  justify  him. 
2  Cor.  ii.  14.  Here  the  rendering,  "Now  thanivs 
be  unto  God,  which  always  causeth  ics  to  triumph  in 
Christ,"  seems  to  rest  on  a  mistake  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  Greek.  Indeed,  the  Authorised  Version  con- 
tradicts itself,  for  the  same  word  occurs  again  at  Col. 
ii.  15,  and  is  there  translated  "  triumphing  over  them." 
The  correct  rendering  is  that  of  the  Revised  Version, 
"  But  thanks  be  unto  God,  which  always  leadeth  us  in 
triumph  in  Christ,"  on  which  Bishop  Lightfoot  remarks, 
that  here  "the  image  of  the  believer  made  captive 
and  chained  to  the  car  of  Christ  is  most  expressive, 
while  the  paradox  of  the  Apostle's  thanksgiving  over 
his  own  spiritual  defeat  and  thraldom  is  at  once  sig- 
nificant and  characteristic."  t 

*  Eadie,   The  English  Bible,  ii.  374. 

t  Revision  of  the  New  Testuineni,  p.  135. 

G  2 


$4  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

Gal.  V.  17.  The  Authorised  Version  here  reads, 
"For  the  flesh  lusteth  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit 
against  the  flesh  ;  and  these  are  contrary  the  one  to 
the  other;  so  that  ye  cannot  do  the  things  that  ye 
would."  By  this  rendering  the  flesh  is  represented 
as  the  master-principle,  which  succeeds  in  preventing 
believers  from  doing  the  things  which  they  would. 
But  the  very  opposite  is  impHed  in  the  Greek. 
The  Spirit  who  dwells  in  believers  is  represented  as 
enabling  them  successfully  to  resist  those  tendencies 
to  evil  which  naturally  exist  within  them ;  and  the 
correct  rendering  is  that  of  the  Revised  Version, 
"For  the  flesh  lusteth  against  the  Spirit,  and  the 
Spirit  against  the  flesh;  for  these  are  contrary  the 
one  to  the  other ;  that  ye  may  not  do  the  things  that 
ye  would^^ 

Eph.  iv.  29.  Here  again  the  Authorised  Version 
presents  the  following  impossible  translation,  "  Let  no 
corrupt  communication  proceed  out  of  your  mouth, 
but  that  which  is  good  to  the  use  of  edifying^  that  it 
may  minister  grace  unto  the  hearers."  The  Hteral 
meaning  of  the  Greek  is  "  to  the  building  up  of  the 
need,"  and  its  real  import  is,  that  hearers  are  to  be 
addressed,  not  in  commonplace  generalities,  but  in 
special  terms,  as  their  necessities  require.  This  is 
expressed  in  the  Revised  Version,  "  Let  no  corrupt 
speech  proceed  out  of  your  mouth,  but  that  which  is 


The  English  New  Testament.  85 

good  for  edifying  as  the  need  may  be,  that  it  may  give 
grace  to  them  that  hear." 

Philipp.  iv.  2,  3.  The  Authorised  Version  here 
reads,  "  I  beseech  Euodias,  and  beseech  Syntyche, 
that  they  be  of  the  same  mind  in  the  Lord.  And  I 
intreat  thee  also,  true  yoke-fellow,  help  those  women 
which  laboured  with  me  in  the  Gospel,"  &c.  It  would 
seem  from  this  rendering  that  Euodias  and  Syntyche 
are  referred  to  only  in  the  second  verse,  and  that  the 
women  afterwards  spoken  of  are  different.  But  the 
original  shows  that  this  is  not  the  case,  and  the  proper 
translation  is  that  of  the  Revised  Version,  "  I  beseech 
Euodias,  and  I  beseech  Syntyche  to  be  of  the  same 
mind  in  the  Lord.  Yea,  I  intreat  thee  also,  true  yoke- 
fellow, help  those  7vomenfor  they  laboured  with  me  in 
the  Gospel,"  &c. 

Col.  ii.  8.  If  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  Authorised 
Version  here  is  positively  erroneous,  it  is  certainly 
liable  to  grave  misconstruction.  The  true  meaning  is 
clearly  brought  out,  when  instead  of  "  Beware  lest  any 
man  spoil  you  through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,"  we 
read  as  in  the  Revised  Version,  "  Take  heed  lest  there 
shall  be  any  one  that  maketh  spoil  of  you  through  his 
philosophy  and  vain  deceit." 

2  Thess.  ii.  i.  Here  the  Authorised  Version 
errs,  in  common  with  many  others,  in  the  rendering, 
*'Now   we    beseech    you,   brethren,    by   the    coming 


S6  Coinpauio7i  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  &c.  It  should  be,  as 
in  the  Revised  Version,  "Now  we  beseech  you, 
brethren,  in  regard  of  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  &c. 

I  Tim.  MX.  5.  Here  the  rendering  of  the  Author- 
ised Version,  "  supposing  that  gain  is  godliness,"  is 
not  only  erroneous  but  absurd.  How  it  could  have 
ever  found  acceptance  is  very  difficult  to  understand. 
As  the  original  clearly  indicates,  "  godliness  "  is  the 
subject,  and  "gain"  the  predicate,  so  that  the  correct 
rendering  is  that  of  the  Revised  Version,  "  supposing 
that  godliness  is  a  ivay  of  gain  r 
"'  Hei).  xi.  13.  This  verse  is  spoiled  in  the  Author- 
ised Version,  which  runs  thus,  "These  all  died  in  faith, 
not  having  received  the  promises,  but  having  seen 
them  afar  off,  and  were  persuaded  of  them  and  em- 
braced them,  and  confessed  that  they  were  strangers 
and  pilgrims  on  the  earth."  It  was  formerly  remarked 
that  the  clause  "and  were  persuaded  of  them"  has  no 
right  to  stand  in  the  text.  We  have  now  to  notice 
that  the  translation,  "and  embraced  them,"  is  incorrect. 
The  image,  as  Chrysostom  long  ago  remarked,  is  that 
of  sailors  who,  catching  a  glimpse  of  the  shores  they 
wish  to  reach,  salute  them  from  a  distance.  It  will  be 
remembered  how  the  poet  notices  this  in  our  own 
language,  when,  speaking  of  a  promontory  by  the  sea, 
he  says — 


The  English  Neiv  Testament.  87 

"  His  hoary  head 
Conspicuous  many  a  league,  the  mariner. 
Bound  homeward,  and  in  hope  already  there, 
Greets  with  three  cheers  exulting."  * 

Such  is  the  attitude  assigned  in  this  passage  to  the  Old 
Testament  saints,  and  the  verse  ought  to  be  translated 
as  in  the  Revised  Version,  "  These  all  died  in  faith, 
not  having  received  the  promises,  but  having  seen 
them,  and  greeted  tJienifrom  afar,  and  having  confessed 
that  they  were  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the  earth." 

I  Fet.  iii.  21.  It  is  certain  that  the  Authorised 
Version  is  here  wrong  in  translating  the  original  as 
meaning  "  the  ansiver  of  a  good  conscience  towards 
God."  The  exact  meaning  of  the  clause  is  difficult  to 
determine.  It  probably  is  the  seeking  after  God  with 
an  earnest  heart,  as  the  great  spiritual  idea  in  Christian 
baptism  implies.  The  Revised  Version,  with  certainly 
a  far  nearer  approach  to  truth  than  the  Authorised, 
inserts  somewhat  doubtfully  in  the  text,  "  the  interro- 
gation of  a  good  conscience  toward  God,"  while 
"  inquiry  "  and  "  appeal  "  stand  on  the  margin. 

Rev.'w.  6,  7,  8,  9;  V.  6,  8,  11,  14;  vi.  1,3,5.6,7; 
vii.  II ;  xiv.  3  ;  xv.  7  ;  xix.  4.  Every  one  must  have 
heard  the  word  "beast"  or  "beasts,"  which  is  the 
translation  of  the  Authorised  Version  in  these  passages, 
quietly  corrected  into  "living  creature"  or  "creatures." 

*  Cowper's  Task,  Book  I. 


88  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

The  word  in  the  original  is  totally  different  from  that 
which  is  found  in  such  passages  as  Rev.  xiii.  i,  xiv.  9, 
&c.,  where  the  rendering  ''beast"  is  quite  proper. 
The  terms  will  be  found  properly  discriminated  in  the 
Revised  Version. 


The  English  New  Testa7ne?it  89 


CHAPTER   11. 

CORRECTION    OF   MISTAKES    IN    GREEK    GRAMMAR. 

Here  a  very  wide  field  opens  up  before  us.  The 
Authorised  Version  is  often  most  inexact  in  regard  to 
grammatical  points.  This  comes  out  in  many  ways, 
and  will  here  be  illustrated  with  reference  to  the  article, 
the  tenses  of  the  Greek  verb,  and  the  senses  assigned 
to  several  prepositions. 

It  need  hardly  be  said  how  great  is  the  difference 
of  meaning  imparted  to  a  clause  or  sentence  in  our 
language,  according  as  one  word  in  it  is  without  an 
article,  or  has  the  indefinite  or  definite  article.  Thus, 
if  we  read,  "  God  gave  life  to  inan^''  that  is  felt  to  have 
a  very  distinct  sense  from  "  God  gave  life  to  a  man/' 
and  the  latter  again  to  be  very  different  in  meaning 
from,  "God  gave  life  to  the  man."  Perhaps  no  better 
illustration  could  be  adduced  of  the  difference  of 
significntion  caused  in  English  by  the  use  of  the 
indefinite  or  definite  articles  respectively  than  is  fur- 
nished in  the  remark  said  to  have  been  made  by 
Charles  Fox,  when,  comparing  his  own  fluency  with 
that  of  William  Pitt,  he  said,  "  I  never  want  a  word, 


90  Companio7i  to  the  Reviscu    Version  of 

but  Pitt  never  wants  ihe  word."  These  examples  will 
sufficiently  suggest  to  the  reader  how  much  may- 
depend  on  the  coiTect  use  of  the  article  in  our 
language. 

But  in  the  Authorised  Version  this  point  of  accuracy 
has  been  almost  entirely  neglected.  The  Greek 
language  has  a  definite  article,  and  its  omission  or 
insertion  in  a  passage  often  has  the  weightiest  effect 
upon  the  sense.  Yet  our  translators  seem  to  have 
been  ignorant  of  this  fact,  and  have  treated  the 
article  as  if  it  were  not  of  the  slightest  importance. 
They  have  been  guilty  of  every  possible  variety  of 
error  in  connection  with  it.  As  will  immediately 
appear,  they  have  omitted  it  in  their  version  where  it 
existed  in  the  original ;  they  have  inserted  it  where  it 
had  no  place  in  the  Greek  ;  and  they  have  sometimes 
over-translated  it  by  giving  it  the  force  of  a  demon- 
strative pronoun.  Let  us  look  at  some  instances  of 
their  blundering  under  each  of  these  three  heads. 

First — The  Authorised  Version  has  frequently 
omitted  the  article  where  it  existed  in  the  Greek. 
There  are,  no  doubt,  cases  in  which  the  English  idiom 
will  not  tolerate  the  use  of  an  article  where  it  is  found 
in  the  original.  This  is  especially  true  when  it  stands 
before  proper  names  and  abstract  nouns.  But,  with 
these  exceptions,  it  is  generally  important  that  the 
definite  article  should  be  represented  in  English  when 


The  English  New  Testament.  91 

it  stands  in  the  Greek.  This  comes  out  very  strikingly 
in  connection  with  the  word  Christ.  That  term  is 
never  used  in  the  Gospels  as  a  proper  name,  but 
always  as  an  official  title.  Only  once  is  it  connected 
with  the  personal  appellation  Jesus,  namely,  at  John 
xvii.  3,  in  which  passage  the  Saviour  stations  himself, 
as  it  were,  in  the  future,  when  his  claim  to  be  regarded 
as  Messiah  shall  have  been  demonstrated  by  the 
resurrection.  After  that  event,  the  term  Christ  might 
be  used  as  synonymous  with  Jesus^  but  not  before. 
Accordingly,  we  find  that  in  the  Gospels  the  word 
has,  with  very  few  exceptions,  the  article  prefixed,  and 
should  therefore  be  translated  "///^  Christ."  Thus,  at 
Matt.  ii.  4,  where  the  Authorised  Version  has  "he 
demanded  of  them  where  Christ  should  be  born," 
the  proper  rendering  is  the  Christ,  the  promised 
Messiah.  And  so  throughout.  Many  other  examples 
of  the  improper  and  hurtful  omission  of  the  article  by 
the  Authorised  Version  might  be  quoted.  I  shall 
notice  only  these  two — 2  Thess.  ii.  3.  where,  instead 
of  "  a  falling  away,"  and  "  that  man  of  sin,"  we  should 
read  "  except  the  falling  away  come  first,  and  the  man 
of  sin  be  revealed,"  and  Heb.  xi.  10,  where  the  right 
rendering  is,  "  he  looked  for  the  city  which  hath  the 
foundations,"  the  reference  being  to  the  well-known 
and  often-alluded-to  foundations,  in  other  words,  he 
looked  for  the  New  Jerusalem,  of  which  it  had  been 


92  Companion  to  the  Revised   Version  of 

already  said,  "  Her  foundations  are  in  the  holy 
mountains"  (Ps.  Ixxxvii.  i  ;  cf.  Isa.  xxviii.  i6);  even 
as  in  the  Apocalypse  great  things  are  spoken  of  these 
glorious  foundations  of  the  heavenly  city  (Rev.  xxi.  14, 
19,  20)."*  Proper  regard  to  the  insertion  of  the 
definite  article  where  it  occurs  in  the  Greek  will  be 
found  one  of  the  marked  characteristics  of  the  Revised 
Version. 

Secondly,  the  Authorised  Version  has  inserted  the 
definite  article  where  it  had  no  place  in  the  Greek. 
This  is  not  such  a  frequent  error  as  that  just  noticed, 
but  still  not  a  few  examples  are  to  be  found.  Thus, 
at  I  Tim.  vi.  10,  the  Authorised  Version  makes  St. 
Paul  declare  that  "  the  love  of  money  is  the  root  of  all 
evil,"  an  exaggerated  statement  which  could  not  be 
seriously  maintained,  whereas  the  true  rendering  is, 
"  the  love  of  money  is  a  root  of  all  evil,"  a  sad  truth 
which  universal  experience  has  confirmed.  So  again, 
at  Luke  iii.  14,  we  should  read,  "and  soldiers  also 
asked  him  ; "  at  2  Cor.  iii.  15,  ^'-  a  veil  lieth  upon  their 
heart;"  at  Gal.  iv.  31,  "children  of  a  handmaid ; "  at 
Philipp.  iii.  5,  "a  Hebrew  of  Hebrews;"  and  thus  in 
several  other  passages  which  will  be  noticed  by  readers 
of  the  Revised  Version. 

Thirdly,  the  Authorised  Version  has  sometimes 
over-transfated  the  article  by  giving  it  the  force  of  a 
*  Abp.  Trench,  On  the  Authorised  Version,  p.  86. 


The  English  JVeiu  Testa ni en f.  93 

demonstrative  pronoun.  Examples  of  this  error  occur 
at  John  i.  21,  where  we  find,  ''Art  thou  thai  prophet  ?  '* 
instead  of  "Art  thou  the  prophet?"  iv.  37,  ^^  that 
saying '^  for  ** //^^  saying ; "  vi.  32,  "//i^/ bread"  for 
"//^^  bread;"  at  Acts  xix.  9,  ^Uhat  way"  for  ^^  the 
way;"  2  Cor.  iii.  17,  "///^/Spirit"  for  ''the  Spirit;" 
vii.  II,  "in  this  matter  "  for  "  in  the  matter  ; "  Rev.  i. 
3,  "  words  of  this  prophecy "  for  "  words  of  the 
prophecy ; "  and  so  in  some  other  passages  which 
have  been  corrected  in  the  Revised  Version. 

Finally,  in  connection  with  this  point  there  are 
several  passages  which  serve  to  prove  that  the  trans- 
lators of  the  Authorised  Version  attached  little  or  no 
importance  to  the  occurrence  of  the  article  either  in 
Greek  or  English.  Thus,  at  James  v.  20  they  trans- 
lated the  Greek  by  "«  multitude  of  sins,"  while  at 
I  Peter  iv.  8  they  render  the  very  same  words  'Uhe 
multitude  of  sins."  Thus,  too,  at  Matt.  viii.  20  we 
find  the  article  which  stands  in  the  original  given  in 
English,  "  The  foxes  have  holes,  and  the  birds  of  the 
air  have  nests,"  whereas  at  Luke  ix.  58  the  very  same 
Greek  is  rendered  without  the  article — "  Foxes  have 
holes,  and  birds  of  the  air  have  nests."  How  detri- 
mental to  the  bringing  out  of  the  true  meaning  of 
Scripture  in  many  passages  was  this  unscholarly  and 
inconsistent  treatment  of  the  article  has  already  been 
sufficiently  evinced. 


94  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

The  next  point  of  grammatical  incorrectness 
which  calls  for  notice  in  the  Authorised  Version 
respects  the  rendering  of  the  tenses  of  the  Greek  verb. 
Here,  as  in  regard  to  the  article,  the  translators  were, 
no  doubt,  misled  by  their  greater  familiarity  with  the 
Latin  than  the  Greek  language.  The  Latin  has  no 
article,  definite  or  indefinite,  nor  does  it  possess  the 
elaborate  tense  system  of  the  Greek.  In  particular, 
Latin  has  no  means  of  distinguishing  between 
momentary  past  action  for  ever  finished  and  con- 
tinuous past  action  just  completed,  but  which  may 
still  be  carried  on.  The  Latin  perfect  tense  must 
serve  both  purposes,  and  hence  it  was  natural  that 
men  who  were  accustomed  to  speak  and  write  in  that 
language,  with  its  one  tense  denoting  both  varieties  of 
past  action,  should  fail  to  discriminate  between  the 
two  tenses  employed  to  express  the  two  kinds  of  past 
action  in  the  sister  tongue. 

We  find,  accordingly,  that  little  attention  is  paid 
in  the  Authorised  Version  to  the  difference  between 
the  Greek  aorist  and  the  Greek  perfect.  They  are 
interchanged  very  much  at  random  in  the  translation. 
Thus,  at  Matt.  ii.  2  an  aorist  is  translated  as  a  perfect 
— "we  have  seen"  for  "we  saw;"  while  at  Lukexiii.  2 
a  pisrfect  is  translated  as  an  aorist — "  they  suffered  " 
for  "  they  have  suffered."  The  clear  principle  which 
ought  to  be  observed  in  regard  to  this  matter  is  that 


The  English  New  Testament.  95 

the  Greek  tenses  should  ahvays  be  rendered  with 
strict  grammatical  precision  in  English,  whenever  the 
genius  of  our  language  will  admit  of  it.  But  there 
are,  undoubtedly,  many  occasions  on  which  English 
idiom  will  not  tolerate  a  strict  rendering  of  the  aorist. 
Instead  of  the  bare  and  hard  past  tense,  a  perfect  or 
even  pluperfect  rendering  brings  out  the  meaning 
better  in  our  language.  Thus  at  Matt.  xix.  20  an 
aorist  occurs  in  the  Greek,  yet  the  Revised  Version, 
no  less  than  the  Authorised,  renders  it  by  a  perfect — 
"All  these  things  have  I  obsej-ved''  It  is  quite 
impossible  to  act  upon  the  rule  that  the  Greek  aorist 
must  always  be  rendered  by  the  English  past  tense  ; 
and,  that  being  so,  differences  of  opinion  will  ne- 
cessarily arise  with  respect  to  particular  passages. 
But,  while  this  is  admitted,  there  is  at  the  same  time 
no  doubt  that  the  strict  grammatical  meaning  of  the 
tense  has  often  been  departed  from  in  the  Authorised 
Version,  not  only  without  necessity,  but  even  to  the 
detriment  of  the  sense.  Thus,  at  Matt.  ii.  15,  instead 
of  "  I  have  called,"  we  ought  to  read  "  I  called,"  the 
reference  being  to  a  historic  fact  in  the  distant  past. 
So  at  Acts  xix.  2  the  meaning  is  quite  obscured  by  the 
rendering — "  Have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since 
ye  believed?"  It  ought  to  be,  "  Did  ye  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost  when  ye  believed  ? "  Once  more,  at 
2  Pet.  i.  14  the  striking  reference  by  the  Apostle  to 


96  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

the  scene  described  in  John  xxi.  18,  19,  is  quite  lost 
by  the  substitution  of  a  perfect  tense  for  the  aorist  of 
the  original.  The  verse  has  only  to  be  read  as  it 
stands  in  the  Authorised  and  Revised  Versions  re- 
spectively to  feel  that  such  is  the  case.  In  the  one 
we  find  the  following  words  :  "  Knowing  that  shortly 
I  must  put  off  this  my  tabernacle,  even  as  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  hath  shewed  me,"  as  if  the  communica- 
tion had  just  been  made.  In  the  other  we  read, 
*'  Knowing  that  the  putting  off  of  my  tabernacle 
cometh  swifdy,  even  as  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  shewed 
me  " — the  mind  being  thus  at  once  transported  to 
the  shore  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  where  Christ  had 
so  long  ago  forewarned  his  Apostle  "  by  what 
manner  of  death  he  should  glorify  God."  These  are 
only  a  few  examples  of  the  many  grammatical  correc- 
tions which  have  been  made  with  respect  to  the  aorist 
in  the  Revised  Version. 

Again,  as  has  been  said,  perfects  are  translated  as 
if  they  had  been  aorists.  This  also  sometimes  greatly 
mars  the  sense,  as  at  i  Cor.  xv.  4.  In  the  first  clause 
of  that  verse  an  aorist  occurs,  and  in  the  second  a 
perfect ;  but  both  are  translated  as  past  tenses  in  the 
Authorised  Version,  thus,  "  And  that  he  was  buried, 
and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day  according  to  the 
Scriptures."  The  beautiful  discrimination  indicated  in 
the  original  between  the  fact  of  Christ's  burial  and  that 


The  English  New  Testament.  97 

of  his  resurrection  is  thus  lost.  The  former  event  was 
simply  historical,  and  has  passed  away  for  ever;  the 
latter  is  more  than  historical,  for  Christ  still  exists  as  a 
living  Person  who  has  risen  again  from  the  dead.  The 
perfect,  therefore,  should  have  its  proper  meaning 
assigned  to  it,  and  the  verse  should  stand  thus,  "  And 
that  he  was  buried,  and  that  he  hath  been  raised  on  the 
third  day  according  to  the  Scriptures."  There  are 
numerous  other  instances  in  which  the  use  of  the 
perfect  in  the  Greek  has  a  special  beauty  which  is  lost 
^n  our  English  version.  Thus,  the  proper  rendering  at 
John  v.  33  imparts  great  additional  vividness  to  the 
passage — "  Ye  have  sent  unto  John,  and  he  hath  borne 
witness  unto  the  truth.'*  Of  course,  the  perfect  may 
frequently  be  expressed  by  "is"  as  well  as  by  "has;" 
we  may  say  either  "my  time  is  not  yet  come,''  or,  "my 
time  has  not  yet  come."  Sometimes  the  one  form  is 
to  be  preferred  in  our  language  and  sometimes  the 
other;  but  in  one  way  or  another,  the  perfect,  where  it 
occurs  in  the  Greek,  may  generally  be  expressed  in 
English.  Thus  we  read  at  Matt.  xxv.  6,  "At  midnight 
a  cry  is  made,"  and  not  "  was  made;"  at  John  viii.  2iZi 
"  have  never  been^^  and  not  "  7ve7'e  never,"  and  so  in 
other  places  which  will  be  observed  in  reading  the 
Revised  Version. 

The  imperfect  tense  often  expresses  delicate  shades 
of  meaning  in  the   original  which  cannot  always  be 

H 


98  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

represented  in  our  language.  But  certainly  much 
more  may  in  this  respect  be  accomplished  than  is 
attempted  in  the  Authorised  Version.  Thus  at  Matt, 
iii.  14,  the  word  "forbad"  is  a  very  coarse  rendering 
of  an  imperfect  tense  in  the  Greek.  The  meaning  is 
that  John  laboured  for  a  time  to  avoid  what  he  thought 
the  unseemliness  of  baptising  his  superior,  and  this  has 
been  expressed  in  the  Revised  Version  by  the  words, 
"John  would  have  hindered  him."  Again,  at  Luke 
i.  59,  there  is  a  mis-statement  of  fact  owing  to  the 
neglect  of  the  imperfect  tense.  It  is  stated  that  "they 
called  him  Zacharias,"  but  this  is  not  true,  since  they 
were  prevented  by  the  interposition  of  his  mother  from 
doing  so.  The  passage  simply  implies  that  they  in- 
tended to  name  the  child  Zacharias,  and  this  is  ex- 
pressed by  the  translation,  "  they  would  have  called 
him."  Once  more,  at  Luke  v.  6,  we  read  in  the 
Authorised  Version  that  "  their  net  brake,''  where  the 
proper  rendering  is  ^'' was  breaking'' — the  process  had 
begun.  Sometimes  the  aorist  and  the  imperfect  stand 
in  the  same  verse,  and  the  force  of  the  latter  is  then 
very  obvious,  yet  has  not  unfrequently  been  missed. 
Thus  at  Luke  viii.  23  we  read  that  "there  came 
down  a  storm  of  wind  on  the  lake,  and  they  were  filled 
with  water,  and  were  in  jeopardy;'^  but  while  the  tense 
of  the  first  verb  denotes  completed  past  action,  that  of 
the  second  implies  that  the  threatened  result  was  not 


The  English  Nav  Testament.  99 

yet  accomplished,  and  the  translation  should  be  "they 
were  filling  with  water." 

The  manner  in  which  the  Greek  tenses  are  rendered 
in  the  Authorised  Version  does  indeed  exhibit  strange 
inconsistency  and  confusion.  Present  tenses  are 
represented  by  pasts^  as  at  Heb.  ix.  6,  "  the  priests 
7ve7it"  for  "the  priests  go,'  at  Rev.  vii.  14,  "  these  are 
they  which  came,''  for  "these  are  they  which  come,'' 
and  in  other  places ;  and  by  futures,  as  at  Matt.  xxiv. 
40  and  41,  "the  one  shall  be  taken,  and  the  other  left," 
for  "one  is  taken,  and  one  is  left;"  John  vii.  41, 
''Shall  Christ  come  out  of  Galilee?"  for  ''Doth  the 
Christ  come  out  of  Galilee  ? "  and  in  several  other 
passages.  Future  tenses  are  rendered  as  imperatives: 
thus,  at  Matt,  v,  48,  we  find,  '^  Be  ye  perfect,"  for  "Ye 
shall  be  perfect,  and  at  i  Tim.  vi.  8,  we  read,  much  to 
the  injury  of  the  passage,  "  Having  food  and  raiment 
let  us  be  therewith  content,"  for  "  we  shall  be  therewith 
content." 

While  the  Authorised  Version  is  thus  so  very  in- 
exact in  its  rendering  of  the  tenses,  we  cannot  expect 
to  find  it  free  from  error  in  various  other  particulars 
connected  with  the  Greek  verb.  Some  writers  have, 
accordingly,  noted  that  it  occasionally  mis-translates 
the  middle  or  passive  voice,  by  assigning  it  a  meaning 
which  belongs  only  to  the  active.  Thus,  at  Philipp.  ii. 
15,  we  find  "among  whom^'<?  i-/////^,"  where  the  correct 

H  2 


loo  Cotnpanio7i  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

rendering  is,  "  among  whom  ye  are  seen.''  Again  at 
2  Cor.  V.  lo,  the  force  of  the  passive  is  not  brought 
out.  The  original  impUes  far  more  than  that  "we 
must  all  appear  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ," 
its  real  force  is  that  "  we  must  all  be  made  manifest^ 
When  the  ear  has  once  become  disenchanted  of  the 
charm  which  is  felt  to  reside  in  the  familiar  words  of 
the  Authorised  Version,  it  will  be  acknowledged  that 
in  the  changes  which  regard  for  grammatical  accuracy 
in  rendering  the  Greek  verb  has  demanded,  much 
gain  is  to  be  derived  from  the  more  scholarly  repre- 
sentation of  the  original  presented  in  the  Revised 
Version. 

We  have  now  to  look  at  some  of  those  instances 
of  mistranslation  which  occur  in  the  Authorised 
Version  with  respect  to  the  Greek  prepositions. 
These  errors  are  not  so  numerous  as  some  writers 
have  represented.  It  would  be  an  utter  mistake  to 
demand  from  the  writers  of  that  Hebraised  Greek  in 
which  the  New  Testament  is  composed  the  same 
grammatical  precision  that  is  found  in  the  classical 
authors.  There  should  be  taken  into  account,  when 
dealing  especially  with  then-  use  oi  the  Greek  prepo- 
sitions, the  fact  that  they  were  influenced  by  the 
analogous  Hebrew  words  in  the  way  in  which  they 
employed  them.     We  cannot,  therefore,  rigidly  apply 


The  Endish  Nav  Testament. 


to  their  writings  those  canons  of  interpretation  de- 
rived from  a  study  of  the  classics.  Much  allowance 
must  be  made  for  the  effect  of  Hebrew  idiom  ;  but, 
after  that  has  been  done,  it  is  certain  that  the  sacred 
writers  did  not  use  the  prepositions  with  that  laxity 
which  might  be  inferred  from  the  renderings  given  to 
them  in  the  Authorised  Version. 

We  cannot,  for  example,  imagine  that  they  con- 
founded the  two  very  distinct  meanings  which  a  much- 
used  preposition*  had,  according  as  it  governed  the 
genitive  or  accusative.  Yet  this  is  frequently  done  in 
our  English  version.  The  genitive  rendering  "by 
means  of"  is  substituted  for  the  accusative  rendering 
''  by  reason  of,"  or  the  preposition  is,  in  some  other 
way,  deflected  from  its  proper  import.  Thus,  at  John 
vi.  57,  we  find  the  erroneous  rendering  "by"  twice 
in  one  verse,  "As  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me  and 
I  live  l>y  the  Father ;  so  he  that  eateth  me,  even  he 
shall  live  by  me."  The  great  theological  truth  is  thus 
obscured  that  the  Father  is  the  fountain  of  life,  while 
the  Son  again  is  the  source  of  all  life  to  created  beings, 
and  specially  of  the  highest  life  to  His  people ;  and 
the  verse  should  be  rendered  as  follows,  "As  the 
living  Father  sent  me,  and  I  live  beeause of  t\\Q  Father; 
so  he  that  eateth  me  shall  live  beeause  of  me."  At 
Heb.  vi.   7  we  read  "  bringeth  forth  herbs  meet  for 


I02         Compaiiion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

them  by  whom  it  is  dressed,"  instead  of  the  only 
correct  rendering  '"'•for  whose  sake  it  is  dressed." 
Numerous  other  examples  of  the  way  in  which  the 
two  perfectly  distinct  meanings  of  the  preposition, 
according  to  the  case  by  which  it  is  followed,  are 
confounded,  might  be  produced,  but  that  is  not  the 
only  error  which  our  translators  have  committed  in 
respect  to  it.  They  have  rendered  it  "  at  "  in  Matt. 
vii.  13,  where  the  usual  "  by  "  would  have  been  more 
correct;  "for"  at  i  Cor.  vii.  26,  where  "by  reason 
of "  is  the  clearer  translation;  "for"  again  at  Rom. 
XV.  30,  where,  with  a  different  case,  "  by  "  is  the  only 
proper  equivalent ;  and  even  "  to  "  instead  of  "  by  " 
at  2  Pet.  i.  3,  where  they  must  have  been  in  despair 
as  to  the  meaning  before  they  adopted  such  an  im- 
possible translation.  They  clearly  show  that  they 
had  no  principles  to  guide  them  in  the  rendering 
they  gave  of  this  preposition,  sometimes  placing  the 
wrong  translation  in  the  text  and  the  right  one  in  tlie 
margin,  or  vice  vei'sd,  and  being  apparently  induced 
to  choose  one  English  term  rather  than  another, 
simply  by  what  seemed  to  them  best  to  suit  the 
context. 

Not  to  dwell  at  any  length  on  mis-translations  of 
other  prepositions,  the  following  erroneous  renderings 
may  simply  be  noted  as  specimens.  At  Luke  xxiii. 
42  we  have  the  very  serious  mistake  of  "  Lord,  re- 


The  Eiiglish  Ncio  Testament.  103 

member  me  when  thou  comest  into  thy  kingdom,''  for 
"  Lord,  remember  me  when  thou  comest  in  thy  king- 
dom"— in  the  full  possession  of  Thy  mediatorial 
sovereignty.  At  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  instead  of ''baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  the  true  rendering  is  *'  baptizing 
them  into  the  name,"  just  as  at  i  Cor.  x.  2  we  read 
"  baptized  into  Moses,"  and  as  should  be  read  at 
Acts  viii.  16,  ^^into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  and 
at  I  Cor.  i.  13,  ^^  into  the  name  of  Paul."  At  Matt. 
xxiv.  30  the  translation  should  be  ^^  on  the  clouds," 
and  not  "  in  the  clouds ;"  and  so  in  other  passages 
where  the  same  preposition  is  used.  In  the  important 
doctrinal  passage,  i  Cor.  viii.  6,  instead  of  "  in  him," 
we  should  read  "  unto  him ;"  and  the  verse  runs  thus 
in  the  Revised  Version  :  "  To  us  there  is  one  God,  the 
Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  unto  him  ; 
and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all 
things,  and  we  through  him." 

It  deserves  also  to  be  noticed  that  prepositions  are 
sometimes  mis-translated  when  in  composition  with 
verbs.  Thus,  to  give  only  one  striking  example, 
we  read  in  the  Authorised  Version,  at  Heb.  iv.  14, 
"Seeing  then  that  we  have  a  great  high  priest,  that 
is  passed  into  the  heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  let 
us  hold  fast  our  profession."  But  this  is  an  im- 
possible translation  of  the  preposition  here  used  with 


I04         Companion  to  the  Revised  Vej'sion  of 

the  verb,  and  the  only  correct  rendering  is,  "  Having 
then  a  great  high  priest,  who  hath  passed  through  the 
heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  let  us  hold  fast  our 
confession."  This  expression,  "  hath  passed  through 
the  heavens,"  may  at  first  appear  strange  to  us,  but  it 
will  gain  in  significance  the  more  it  is  pondered, 
denoting,  as  it  probably  does,  that  "as  the  earthly 
high  priest  passed  through  the  veil  into  the  holiest 
place,  so  the  great  High  Priest  through  the  heavens 
to  God's  throne."* 

Many  other  examples  of  less  or  more  inaccuracy 
might  be  noticed  as  existing  in  our  common  English 
translation,  but  the  above  must  suffice  as  illustra- 
tions ;  and  the  rest  will  suggest  themselves  to  every 
careful  reader  of  the  Revised  Version. 

•  Alford  on  Heb.  iv.  14. 


The  English  New  Testament,  105 


CHAPTER  III. 

CORRECTION  OF  ARCHAISMS,  AMBIGUITIES,  AND  THE 
RENDERING  OF  PROPER  NAMES  AND  TECHNICAL 
EXPRESSIONS. 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  modernise  the  style  ot 
the  Authorised  Version.  On  the  contrary,  "innocent 
archaisms" — to  use  an  expression  which  was  fre- 
quently on  the  lips  of  the  Company — have  invariably 
been  allowed  to  stand.  It  was  felt  that  these  tend  to 
give  a  dignity  and  solemnity  to  a  translation  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  that  to  change  them  into  the  language  of 
present  every-day  life  would  have  been  to  ensure  loss 
instead  of  gain.  As  has  been  well  remarked,  "These 
(archaisms),  shedding  round  the  sacred  volume  the 
reverence  of  age,  removing  it  from  the  ignoble  associa- 
tions which  will  often  cleave  to  the  language  of  the 
day,  should  on  no  account  be  touched,  but  rather 
thankfully  accepted  and  carefully  preserved.  For, 
indeed,  it  is  good  that  the  phraseology  of  Scripture 
should  not  be  exactly  that  of  our  common  life  :  should 
be  removed  from  the  vulgarities,  and  even  the  fami- 
liarities, of  this ;   just  as  there  is  a  sense  of  fitness 


io6  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

which  dictates  that  the  architecture  of  a  church  should 
be  different  from  that  of  a  house."* 

In  accordance  with  these  sentiments,  the  same 
antique  air  which  belongs  to  the  Authorised  Version 
will  be  found  also  to  distinguish  the  Revised  Trans- 
lation. Every  archaism  that  still  continues  generally 
intelligible  has  been  left  untouched.  Hence,  such 
forms  as  Jiath^  whiles^  throughIy\  holpen,  &c.,  have 
been  retained,  and  the  relative  "  which "  has  been 
allowed  to  stand,  as  in  old  English,  when  the  antece- 
dent is  a  person. 

But  it  is  manifest  that  an  archaism  ceases  to  be 
innocent  when  it  has  become  altogether  obsolete,  or 
has  wholly  or  to  a  considerable  degree  changed  its 
meaning.  And  not  a  few  such  words  or  phrases  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Authorised  Version.  They  are 
now  either  quite  unintelligible  or  seriously  misleading; 
and  to  substitute  other  expressions  for  them  was 
clearly  one  of  the  plainest  duties  to  be  kept  in  view 
in  preparing  the  Revised  Version. 

Tlie  following  words  may  be  given  as  examples  of 
those  that  have,  of  necessity,  been  replaced  by  others. 
"Let"  now  means  to  permit,  but  is  used  with  exactly 
the  opposite  meaning  of  hinder  at  Rom.  i.  13  ;  2 
Thess.  ii.  7.  '^Worship"  is  now  used  only  with 
reference  to  the  service  of  God,  but   occurs  in   the 

*  Abp.  Trench  On  the  AuiJiorised  Version,  p.  22. 


The  English  Nciv  Testa mmf.  107 

sense  of  respect  show fi  to  ??ia?i  at  Luke  xiv.  10;  while 
"room,"  now  meaning  apartment^  is  used  in  the  same 
verse  to  denote  a  seat.  "Wealth"  reads  strangely 
indeed  at  i  Cor.  x.  24,  "  Let  no  man  seek  his  own, 
but  every  man  another's  wealth^'  where  the  word  means 
welfare.  "  Prevent "  now  means  to  hinder^  but  at 
Matt.  xvii.  25  and  i  Thess.  iv.  15  it  is  used  in  the 
sense  of  anticipate  or  precede.  "  Quick  "  is  used  for 
livings  as  at  Heb.  iv.  1 2,  and  is  barely  intelligible  to 
the  ordinary  reader  of  that  passage.  "Ensue"  is 
quite  obsolete  in  the  sense  oi pursue^  which  it  has  at 
I  Peter  iii.  1 1.  The  word  "  conversation,"  as  used  in 
the  Authorised  Version,  is  a  most  fruitful  cause  of 
mistake.  It  always  means  conduct^  except  at  Philipp. 
iii.  20,  where  it  is  translated  "citizenship"  in  the 
Revised  Version,  and  might  perhaps  mean  "  city  "  or 
*'home."  The  dreadful  word  "damnation,"  which 
stands  at  i  Cor.  xi.  29,  has  had  the  very  worst  con- 
sequences in  many  cases,  and  means  no  more  than 
judgment.  "  Honest,"  at  Philip,  iv.  8,  is  a  Latinism, 
meaning  honourable ;  and  the  same  is  true  of  Rom. 
xii.  17,  though  the  Greek  is  there  different.  "Affect," 
at  Gal.  iv.  17,  is  used  for  court,  and  "allow,"  at  Luke 
xi.  48,  means  approve — senses  of  the  words  which 
would  never  occur  to  a  modern  English  reader.  The 
Vv'ords  "  offend  "  and  "  offence  "  are  very  misleading, 
but  it  is  not  easy,  to  substitute  for  them  others  that 


io8         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

shall  be  in  every  respect  preferable.  The  Revised 
Version  has  adopted  cause  to  stumble  and  stumbling- 
block  for  "oifend"  and  "offence"  in  some  passages, 
as  Matt.  V.  29,  xvi.  23,  but  in  others  has  not  been  able 
to  get  rid  of  the  obnoxious  words.  "  Virtue,"  at  Mark 
V.  30  and  Luke  vi.  19,  vii.  46,  simply  means /^7<:/^r. 
In  the  word  "usury,"  at  Matt.  xxv.  27,  there  is  no 
objectionable  meaning,  and  it  has  been  replaced  by 
interest^  as  our  language  now  requires.  "  Nephews,"  at 
I  Tim.  V.  4,  really  means  grandchildren ;  and  when 
Moses  is  called  "a  proper  child,"  at  Heb.  xi.  23,  the 
meaning  is  what  we  now  express  by  such  a  word  as 
goodly.  The  singular  expression  "  occupy,"  found  at 
Luke  xix.  13  means  traffic^  and  "by-and-by,"  which 
occurs  at  Matt.  xiii.  21  and  several  other  passages 
in  the  Gospels,  means  immediately.  "  Writing  table," 
at  Luke  i.  63,  denotes  writing  tablet,  while  "  devotions," 
at  Acts  xvii.'  23,  means  "objects  of  worship."  To 
mention  only  one  other  example  of  the  many  misleading 
archaisms  which  exist  in  the  Authorised  Version,  the 
word  "debate  "  is  used  at  Rom.  i.  29  in  the  sense  of 
strife ;  3iX\d  so  liable  is  this  to  be  misunderstood  that 
we  are  told  "  a  worthy  member  of  a  Scottish  Church 
court  once  warned  its  members  not  to  call  their 
deliberations  a  'debate,'  for  debate  was  one  of  the 
rank  sins  condemned  by  the  inspired  apostle  !  "* 
*  Eadie's  English  Bible,  ii.  374. 


The  English  Nciu  Testament.  109 

As  specimens  of  archaic  phrases  or  modes  of  ex- 
pression which  are  very  apt  at  the  present  day  to  be 
mistaken  the  following  will  suffice.  At  Matt.  vi.  34 
the  injunction,  "Take  no  thought  for  the  morrow," 
occurs,  and  has  proved  very  hurtful  in  modern  times. 
It  was  a  faithful  enough  representation  of  the  original 
two  and  a  half  centuries  ago,  for  "  thought "  was  then 
used  in  the  sense  of  anxiety.  But  the  word  has  now 
no  such  meaning,  and  the  consequence  is  that  the 
precept  of  our  Lord  as  it  stands  has  perplexed  many  a 
humble  believer,  while  it  has  been  used  by  unbelievers 
as  a  charge  against  Christ's  teaching,  which,  they 
affirm,  encourages  iuiprovide7ice.  But  the  Greek  really 
means,  "  Be  not  anxious  for  the  morrow,"  and  is  so 
rendered  in  the  Revised  Version.  Again,  to  take  an 
instance  of  a  different  kind,  what  a  ludicrous  notion 
are  these  words  at  Acts  xxi.  15  fitted  to  suggest :  "  And 
after  those  days  we  took  up  our  carriages,  and  went  up 
to  Jerusalem."  Persons  of  education  will  doubdess 
run  little  risk  of  mistaking  the  meaning  of  the  passage. 
But  it  should  ever  be  remembered  that  the  Bible  is, 
above  all  other  volumes,  the  people's  book,  and  that,  it 
possible,  not  a  single  expression  should  be  left  in  any 
translation  of  it  which  is  at  all  likely  to  stumble  or 
perplex  the  plainest  reader.  In  the  case  before  us,  a 
very  slight  change,  'Sve  took  up  our  baggage,'^  makes 
the  meaning  clear.      Some  strange  stories  have  been 


no         Companioti  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

told  in  connection  with  the  words  "  we  fetched  a 
compass,"  which  occur  at  Acts  xxviii.  13,  and  whether 
these  be  true  or  not,  much  is  gained  by  the  rendering, 
''  we  made  a  circuit,"  adopted  in  the  Revised  Version. 
Some  ambiguities  which  occur  in  the  Authorised 
Version  also  deserve  to  be  noticed.  One  of  the  most 
puzzling  of  these,  if  regard  be  had  only  to  the  ap- 
parently grammatical  import  of  the  words,  occurs  at 
2  Cor.  V.  21,  "  He  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us, 
who  kneui  710  sin^^  where  it  might  seem  that  the 
sinlessness  of  mankind  was  proclaimed.  This  possible 
misconception  is  very  simply  but  effectually  obviated 
in  the  Revised  Version,  by  rendering,  in  exact  ac- 
cordance with  the  order  of  the  Greek,  ''  Him  who 
knew  no  sin  he  made  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf."  At 
Luke  iv.  20  the  statement  "  He  closed  the  book,  and  he 
gave  it  again  to  the  minister "  might  suggest  the  idea 
of  a  president  or  preacher  in  the  synagogue,  instead 
of  the  attendant  or  officer  who  had  charge  of  the 
sacred  books.  At  Eph.  vi.  12  the  rendering,  "  spiritual 
wickedness  in  high  places,"  is  clearly  ambiguous,  as  it 
might  seem  to  refer  (and  has,  indeed,  been  so  taken) 
to  the  wickedness  of  persons  high  in  rank  or  authority, 
whereas  the  true  meaning  is  "in  the  heavenly  places," 
as  in  other  passages  of  the  Epistle.  There  is  an 
obvious  misplacement  of  the  word  "  also  "  at  Heb. 
xii.    I,  to  the  obscuring   of  the  sense :  "  Wherefore 


The  English  Naa   Testament.  1 1 1 

seeing  we  also  are  compassed  about  with  so  great  a 
cloud  of  witnesses,  let  us  lay  aside,"  &c.,  as  if  the 
believers  named  in  the  previous  chapter  were,  like 
us,  "  compassed  about,"  while  they,  in  fact,  are  them- 
selves "the  cloud  of  witnesses  ; "  and  the  verse  should 
run,  "  Let  us  also,"  &c.  Finally,  James  ii.  i,  "  My 
brethren,  have  not  the  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ," 
is  rendered  clearer  by  translating  '•  hold  not,"  &c. ;  and 
so  at  chap.  iii.  i,  "  My  brethren,  be  not  many  masters, 
knowing  that  we  shall  receive  the  greater  condemna- 
tion," has,  with  advantage,  been  exchanged  for,  "  Be 
not  many  teachers,  my  brethren,  knowing  that  we 
shall  receive  a  greater  judgment,"  in  the  Revised 
Version. 

We  now  proceed  to  consider  the  rendering  of 
proper-  fianies. 

The  common-sense  principle  to  be  observed  in 
regard  to  these  is  that  one  form  should  be  preserved 
throughout  Scripture  for  the  same  person,  so  that  there 
may  be  no  doubt  as  to  identity.  But,  as  need  hardly 
be  said,  this  rule  is  grossly  violated  in  the  Authorised 
Version.  We  find  such  varieties  as  Noah  and  Noe, 
Korah  and  Core,  Hosea  and  Osee,  Sinai  and  Sina, 
Midian  and  Madian,  Miletus  and  Miletum,  &c.,  made 
use  of  in  referring  to  the  same  persons  or  places.  This 
is  most  confusing  to  the  reader,  and  may  sometimes 
entail  serious  disadvantage.      *'  Let  us  just  seek,"'   it 


112         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

has  been  well  said,  "to  realise  to  ourselves  the 
difference  in  the  amount  of  awakened  attention 
among  a  country  congregation  which  Matt.  xvii.  lo 
would  create  if  it  were  read  thus  :  'And  his  disciples 
asked  him,  saying,  Why  then  say  the  scribes  that  Elijah 
must  first  come  ? '  as  compared  with  what  it  now  is 
likely  to  create."*  The  procedure  of  our  translators 
in  regard  to  this  matter  of  proper  names  is  truly  in- 
comprehensible. Not  only  do  they  vary  the  forms  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testament,  but  they  do  so  in 
the  New  Testament  itself,  even  in  the  same  books, 
yea,  in  the  same  chapters.  Thus  we  find  ''  Mark  "  at 
Acts  xii.  12,  25  and  2  Tim.  iv.  it,  but  "Marcus"  at 
Col.  iv.  lb,  Philem.  ver,  24,  i  Peter  v.  13  ;  "  Cretes  "  at 
Acts  ii.  II,  but  "Cretians"  at  Tit.  i.  12;  "Simon, 
son  of  Jona,"  at  John  i.  42,  but  "  Simon,  son  of 
Jonas,"  at  John  xxi.  15,  16,  17;  "Luke"  at  Col.  iv. 
14,  2  Tim.  iv.  II,  but  "Lucas"  at  Philem.  ver.  24; 
"Jeremy"  at  Matt.  ii.  17,  but  "Jeremias"  at  Matt, 
xvi.  14,  and  "Jeremy"  again  at  Matt,  xxvii.  9; 
"  Timotheus"  at  Acts  xvi.  i,  but  "Timothy"  at  Heb. 
xiii.  21,  and,  most  strange  of  all,  "  Timothy  "  at  2  Cor. 
i.  I,  but  "  Timotheus,"  at  ver.  19  of  the  same  chapter. 
It  is  no  slight  gain  that  these  and  similar  inconsis- 
tencies have  been  corrected  in  the  Revised  Version. 
But  there  is  another  name  which  here  calls  for 

*  Trench  On  the  Authorised  Version,  p.  41. 


The  English  Neio  Testament.  113 

special  notice — even  the  "name  that  is  above  every 
name."  The  Greek  form  of  Joshua  is  Jesus,  and  for 
that  very  insufficient  reason  Jesus  stands  in  two 
passages  of  the  Authorised  Version  where  Joshua^ 
the  leader  of  Israel,  is  intended.  These  are  Acts  vii. 
45  and  Heb.  iv.  8,  and  in  both  passages  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  name  of  Jesus  must  have  proved  very 
puzzling  to  plain  English  readers.  When  they  tind  it 
stated  that  "  if  Jesus  had  given  them  rest,  then  would 
he  (David)  not  afterwards  have  spoken  of  another 
day,"  their  minds  are  certain  to  form  some  confused 
notion  of  the  Saviour,  who  is  the  author  of  rest  to  His 
people.  And  thus  is  a  passage  of  Scripture  obscured 
and  perverted  by  the  use  of  the  name  Jesus,  instead 
of  Joshua,  to  designate  the  illustrious  captain  of  the 
children  of  Israel. 

The  extraordinary  inconsistency  of  the  Authorised 
Version  in  regard  to  proper  names  admits  of  still 
further  illustration.  At  Acts  xvii.  19  we  find  the  term 
"Areopagus,"  but  only  three  verses  after  the  same 
spot  is  referred  to  as  "  Mars'  hill ;"  the  form  "  Judea" 
occurs  at  Matt.  ii.  i,  and  most  other  places,  but  for 
some  inconceivable  reason  the  name  appears  as 
"  Jewry  "  at  Luke  xxiii.  5  and  John  vii.  i  ;  so,  again, 
"  Judas  "  is  the  usual  form  in  the  New  Testament  for 
the  "Judah"  of  the  Old,  but  the  name  appears  as 
*' Juda  "  :^t  Mark  vi.  3,  &c.,  and  as  "  Jude  "  in  the  first 


114         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

verse  of  the  Epistle  written  by  that  Apostle.  It  is 
hardly  possible  to  say  a  word  in  defence  of  such 
capricious  variations,  and,  as  a  matter  of  course,  they 
are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Revised  Version. 

With  regard  to  all  such  names,  the  really  important 
points  are  that  the  form  which  has  through  circum- 
stances become  most  familiar  should  be  adopted,  and 
that  then  this  form  should  be  adhered  to  with  strict, 
unvarying  consistency. 

On  now  turning  to  the  consideration  of  technical 
expressions,  we  find  much  to  object  to  in  the 
Authorised  Version.  Several,  indeed,  of  the  render- 
ings it  has  given  of  them  involve  more  or  less  of 
positive  error.  Thus  is  it  with  the  term  "deputy,^' 
which  occurs  at  Acts  xiii.  7,  8,  12,  and  xix.  38;  it 
should  always  be  translated  "  proconsul."  Again,  the 
rendering  "  certain  of  the  chief  of  Asia,"  at  Acts  xix.  3 1, 
suggests  quite  a  false  impression.  It  is  an  official 
title,  and  should  have  either  been  transferred  from  the 
Greek,  like  "tetrarch,"  so  as  to  read  "Asiarchs,"  or 
translated  "presidents,"  as  in  the  Revised  Version. 
At  Mark  vi.  27  the  word  rendered  "executioner" 
really  signifies  *'  a  soldier  of  the  guard ; "  and  at  Rom. 
xvi.  23  "  treasurer  of  the  city  "  is  a  preferable  render- 
ing to  "  chamberlain  " 

It  is  very  difiicult  to  decide  what  course  should  be 


The  Endish  New  Testament. 


followed  in  translating  the  names  of  coins,  weights 
and  measures.  As  need  hardly  be  said,  there  are,  as 
regards  these,  no  words  in  our  language  exactly 
corresponding  to  the  original ;  and  it  would  never  do 
to  present  them  in  a  strictly  equivalent  version,  so  as 
to  read  "a  measure  of  wheat  for  eightpence-half- 
penny,"  or  "  six  pounds  five  shillings  would  not 
purchase  bread  sufficient."  On  the  other  hand,  every 
one  feels  that  the  "  penny  "  and  "  pence  "  which  occur 
so  often  in  the  Authorised  Version  are  awkward  and 
misleading.  Still,  nothing  better  could  be  found. 
The  word  in  the  original,  "denarion,"  might  indeed 
have  been  transferred  from  the  Greek  into  English, 
and  so  with  all  the  other  terms  in  question.  But  this 
would  have  been  felt  almost  intolerable,  and  such 
words  could  have  conveyed  no  meaning  to  the 
English  reader.  For  the  most  part,  therefore,  they 
have  been  left  unaltered  in  the  Revised  Version.  Bui 
in  some  passages  greater  definiteness  has  been  given 
to  the  translation.  Thus  at  Matt.  xvii.  24,  instead  ot 
the  general  word  "  tribute,"  there  is  read,  "  Doth  not 
your  master  pay  the  half-shekdV  And  at  ver.  27  of 
the  same  chapter,  for  the  unmeaning  "piece  of 
money,"  we  read  "  the  shekel,''  which,  being  exactly 
double  the  amount  mentioned  before,  throws  light  on 
the  mimediately  following  words  of  our  Lord  to  St. 
Peter,  "  that  take,  and  give  unto  ih^m  f 07-  me  and  thee.''* 
I  2 


ii6         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

It  may  here  simply  be  noted  that  the  expression 
*'  Easter,"  which  occurs  once  in  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion, is  quite  indefensible.  Our  translators  struck  it 
out  from  many  other  places  in  which  it  stood  in  the 
earlier  English  versions,  and  it  was  probably  retained 
at  Acts  xii.  4  by  mere  oversight.  The  word  ought  to 
be  rendered  there,  as  everywhere  else,  "passover. " 

There  is  one  word  not  occurring  at  all  in  the 
Authorised  Version  that  has  simply  been  transplanted 
from  Greek  into  English  in  the  Revised  Translation. 
This  is  the  term  ^'  Hades,"  denoting  the  invisible 
world.  Immense  gain  has  been  secured  in  several 
passages  by  the  adoption  of  this  word.  Thus  is  it 
very  markedly  at  Acts  ii.  27,  where  these  words  are 
quoted  from  Ps.  xvi.  in  reference  to  Christ :  "  Thou 
wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  Hades,  neither  wilt  thou 
give  thy  Holy  One  to  see  corruption."  The  common 
rendering  "hell"  is  here  wholly  unsuitable.  That 
word  has  in  the  Revised  Version  been  reserved  for 
a  totally  different  term  (Gche7i7ia)  in  the  original. 

Before  concluding  this  chapter,  I  may  notice  the 
correction  of  an  error  in  the  Authorised  Version  which 
seems  to  have  been  due  at  first  simply  to  a  misprint. 
It  occurs  at  Matt,  xxiii.  24  :  "  Ye  blind  guides,  which 
strain  at  a  gnat,  and  swallow  a  camel."  The  correct 
rendering  is  "  strain  oiit^'  and  so,  doubtless,  the  trans- 
lators intended  their  text  to  be,  but  in  some  way  or 


The  English  Neiv  Testament,  117 

other,  at  instead  of  out  found  a  place  in  the  verse. 
We  are  told  by  scholars  who  have  carefully  examined 
the  first  edition  of  the  Authorised  Version,  issued  in 
161 1,  that  it  is  by  no  means  correctly  printed.  The 
errors  which  it  contained  have  been  gradually  removed 
in  subsequent  editions,  so  that  the  text  is  now  very 
accurate ;  but  strangely  enough,  while  other  mistakes 
have  been  perceived  and  corrected,  this  "  strain  at " 
for  "  strain  out "  has  maintained  its  place  down  to  the 
present  day. 


ii8         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 


CHAPTER    IV. 

CORRECTION   OF  THE   UNNECESSARY  CONFOUNDING   OF 
ONE    GREEK   WORD  WITH   ANOTHER  IN    TRANSLATION. 

Here  it  must  at  once  be  admitted  that  not  a  few 
distinctions  which  are  well  marked  in  the  original 
cannot  be  exhibited  in  English.  Strive  as  we  may  to 
the  contrary,  we  are  compelled  to  use  the  same  word 
for  different  Greek  expressions.  This  results  from 
the  comparative  poverty  of  our  tongue.  It  has  been 
justly  said  that  Greek  can  draw  a  clear  line  where 
other  languages  can  only  make  a  blot ;  and  wc  vuust, 
therefore,  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  abandon  in  traub- 
lation  many  of  those  fine  distinctions  which  exist  ia 
the  original. 

It  is,  for  instance,  impossible  to  present  in  English 
the  delicate  shades  of  difference  in  meaning  which 
appear  in  the  Greek  between  the  two*  verbs  both 
rendered  "love"  at  John  xxi.  15 — 17.  Yet  the  beauty 
of  the  passage  is  much  impaired  by  the  necessity 
which  is  felt  in  our  language  of  translating  the  two 
words  by  one  and  the  same  in  English.     The  word 

*  a707raa)  and  ^ikiw. 


The  English  New  Testaifient.  119 

first  employed  by  Christ  is  a  very  common  one  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  specially  denotes  a  pure,  spiritual 
affection.  It  is  used  of  God's  love  to  man,  as  at  John 
iii.  16 — "God  so  ^m/ the  world,"  &c. — and  of  man's 
love  to  God,  as  at  Matt.  xxii.  37—"  Thou  shalt  love 
the  Tord  thy  God,"  &c.  The  other  word  more  par- 
ticularly implies  that  warmth  of  feeling  which  exists 
between  friends.  Thus,  it  is  used  respecting  Lazarus 
at  John  xi.  3  :  "  Behold,  he  whom  thou  lovest  is  sick ;" 
and  again,  at  John  xx.  2,  of  St.  John  himself,  when  he 
is  spoken  of  as  "the  disciple  whom  Jesus  lauedV 
Now,  the  use  of  the  one  word  at  first  by  Christ  serves 
to  remind  St.  Peter  of  the  claim  which  his  Divine 
Master  had  upon  his  deep,  reverential  love.  But  the 
Apostle,  now  profoundly  sensible  of  his  own  weakness, 
does  not  venture  to  promise  this,  yet,  feeling  his  whole 
heart  flowing  out  to  Christ,  he  makes  use  of  the  other 
word,  and  assures  the  Saviour  at  least  of  a  fervent 
personal  affection.  Christ  then  repeats  His  question, 
still  using  the  same  verb,  and  Peter  replies  as  before. 
But  on  asking  the  question  for  the  third  time,  Christ 
graciously  adopts  the  term  employed  by  the  Apostle  : 
He  speaks  to  him  again  as  a  friend ;  He  clasps  the 
now  happy  disciple  afresh  to  His  own  loving  heart. 
Now,  all  this  we  must,  of  necessity,  lose  through  the 
meagreness  of  our  language.  In  like  manner,  we 
miss  the  delicacy  of  the  Greek  in  regard  to  the  use  of 


I20         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

the  same  two  verbs  at  John  xi.  3  and  5.  And  so  is  it 
in  many  other  cases.  When  we  observe  that  there 
are  no  fewer  than  seven  Greek  words  wliich  it  has 
been  found  possible  to  translate  as  "  child  "  in  the 
Authorised  Version,  no  fewer  than  ten  which  have 
been  rendered  "appoint,"  no  fewer  than  fourteen 
which  stand  for  "give,"  and  no  fewer  than  twefity-ojie 
which  correspond  to  "  depart,"  enough  has  been  said 
to  suggest  how  frequently  subtle  distinctions  which 
exist  in  the  original  must  be  lost  in  every  English 
translation. 

But  this  should  only  render  the  desire  more  earnest 
that  where  differences  indicated  in  the  Greek  can  be 
preserved  in  our  language  the  opportunity  should 
not  be  neglected.  In  many  instances,  indeed,  there 
may  not  be  much,  if  any,  practical  advantage  resulting 
from  such  care  in  translation.  Yet  even  then  it  is 
interesting  and  proper  that  distinctions  observed  in 
the  original  should,  as  far  as  possible,  appear  in  the 
version.  And,  as  will  immediately  be  shown,  it  is 
sometimes  most  important,  for  the  right  understanding 
of  passages,  that  distinctions  should  be  clearly  brought 
out  which  have  been  obliterated  in  the  Authorised 
Version. 

Let  us  look,  for  instance,  at  the  two  words*  both 
rendered  "  fold"  in  John  x.  16,  and  observe  how  the 

*  avKr]  and  ttol/u.i'T}. 


The  English  N'civ  Tesfanient.  121 

force  of  the  passage  comes  out  when  they  are 
distinguished,  as  they  should  be,  in  translation.  The 
common  Version  runs  thus:  "And  other  sheep  I 
have,  which  are  not  of  this  fold  :  them  also  I  must 
bring,  and  they  shall  hear  my  voice ;  and  there  shall 
be  one  fold,  and  one  shepherd."  But  the  Revised 
Version  renders  the  last  clause  thus  :  "  And  they  shall 
become  one  Jlock,  one  shepherd."  The  Jewish 
Church  constituted  a  special  fold^  with  its  strict 
enclosure,  but  our  Lord's  words  tell  of  the  time  when 
this  exclusiveness  should  be  done  away,  and  when, 
instead  of  the  narrowness  of  a  fold,  there  should  be 
the  wide-spreading  freedom  of  a  Jlocky  with  one 
shepherd  caring  for  them  all. 

An  interesting  distinction  of  gender  which  exists 
at  John  i.  1 1  should  not  have  been  suppressed  under 
the  rendering  ''his  own,"  adopted  in  both  clauses  of 
the  verse.  In  the  first  clause  the  neuter  plural  is 
found,  and  in  the  second  the  mascult7ie^'^  a  difference 
which  has  been  indicated  by  this  rendering  in  the 
Revised  Version  :  "  He  came  unto  his  own,  and  they 
that  were  his  own  received  him  not." 

Two  different  words  |  are,  in  common,  translated 
"  temple  "  in  the  Authorised  Version,  and  in  most 
passages  their  confusion  is  not  of  much  consequence. 
But  there  is  a  clear  difference    of  meaning  between 

*  Ttt  tSm  and  oUZiOi.  \  rh  Upou  and  5  va6s. 


122         Coinpaiiio7i  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

them,  and  it  is  sometimes  important  that  this  should 
be  brought  out.  The  one  is  more  general,  embracing 
house  and  courts — the  whole,  indeed,  of  the  sacred 
enclosure — and  is  consequently  used  in  such  passages 
as  John  x.  23,  "  Jesus  walked  in  the  te??iple"  and 
Acts  V.  20,  "  Go,  stand  and  speak  in  the  te7nple  to  the 
people."  The  other  is  more  restricted,  denoting  the 
temple  proper,  the  building  or  sanctuary,  once  called, 
at  Luke  xi.  51,  'Hhe  house."  Now,  unless  these  two 
meanings  of  the  word '' temple"  be  borne  in  mind, 
such  a  statement  as  that  which  occurs  at  Matt,  xxiii. 
35  will  not  be  understood.  Our  Lord  there  speaks 
to  His  hearers  of  "  the  blood  of  Zacharias,  whom  ye 
slew  between  the  temple  and  the  altar.'^  In  the  wide 
sense  of  the  word,  the  altar  was  within  the  temple, 
standing,  as  it  did,  in  the  court  of  the  priests.  But  it 
is  the  more  restricted  term  which  is  here  used  -,  and 
the  reader  will  have  no  difficulty  in  understanding  the 
passage  when  he  reads  it,  as  in  the  Revised  Version, 
"  whom  ye  slew  between  the  sanctuary  and  the  altar y 

At  I  Cor.  xiv.  20  the  force  of  the  Apostle's 
exhortation  is  weakened  by  two  different  words*  being 
both  rendered  ''  children."  The  second  expression  is 
better  rendered  "  babes  ;"  and  thus  we  learn  how  far 
St.  Paul  would  have  Christians  go  in  their  abnegation 
of  all  wickedness.     "  Be  not  children  in  mind,"  he 

*  /tr/  7rat5/a  ylveaOe  and  i/rjirid^eTe. 


The  English  New  Testament.  123 

says  :  *'  howbeit  in  malice  be  ye  babes ^^  guileless  and 
innocuous  as  infants. 

There  are  three  words  rendered  "  son "  in  the 
Authorised  Version,  but  there  is  a  cluster  of  passages 
on  which  it  is  important  that  one*  of  these  should 
rather  be  translated  "  servant."  This  is  the  meaning 
sometimes  properly  assigned  it,  as  at  Matt.  viii.  6, 
Luke  XV.  26  ;  but  in  the  passages  referred  to — Acts 
iii.  13,  26,  iv.  27,  30 — it  is  translated  "son,"  or 
"child."  But  it  is  not  to  the  sonship  of  Christ  that 
these  passages  point.  It  is  rather  to  the  obedience 
which,  as  the  servant  of  the  Father,  He  rendered  upon 
earth,  and  by  bringing  this  out  an  important  connection 
is  established  between  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
As  Archbishop  Trench  has  remarked  :  "  Every  student 
of  prophecy  must  have  noticed  how  much  there  is  in 
Isaiah  prophesying  of  Christ  under  the  aspect  of  '  the 
servant  of  the  Lord,'  '  Israel  my  servant^  '  my 
servant  whom  I  uphold'  (Isa.  xlii.  i — 7,  xlix.  i — 12, 
Iii.  13,  liii.  12).  But  it  is  quite  certain  from  the  inner 
harmonies  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  that 
wherever  there  is  a  large  group  of  prophecies  in  the 
Old  there  is  some  allusion  to  them  in  the  New."f 
The  Authorised  Version  does  to  some  extent  indicate 
the  connection  between  fulfilment  and  prophecy  in 
this  matter  by  translating  the  word  "  servant "  at  Matt. 

»  TTOi^.  t  On  the  Authorised  Version,  p.  68. 


124         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

xii.  1 8,  where  Isa.  xlii.  i  is  quoted;  but  the  same 
rendering  should  have  been  adopted  in  the  Acts,  and 
this  has  been  done  in  the  Revised  Version. 

There  are  two  words,  both  translated  "repent,"*  in 
the  Authorised  Version  which  it  is  most  desirable  to 
distinguish  wherever  that  is  possible.  The  one  word 
means  simply  to  "rue"  or  "regret,"  a  course  which 
has  been  followed;  the  other  implies  that  thorough 
change  of  mind  which  is  implied  in  Christian  repent- 
ance. Accordingly,  the  first  term  is  applied,  at  Matt, 
xxvii.  3,  to  Judas,  and  denotes  remorse  rather  than  re- 
pentance; while  the  second  is  constantly  used  in  such 
passages  as  Luke  xv.  lo  :  "There  is  joy  in  the  presence 
of  the  angels  of  God  over  one  sinner  that  repent ethP 
Unfortunately,  it  is  not  always  possible  to  express  the 
distinction  in  our  language,  but  this  has  been  done  at 
2  Cor.  vii.  8,  lo,  in  the  Revised  Version,  where 
"regret"  has  been  introduced  instead  of  "repent," 
and  the  distinction  has  been  made  clear  between  the 
sorrow  which  is  felt  for  having  simply  made  a  mistake 
and  that  which  is  experienced  from  a  sense  of  un- 
worthiness  and  guilt.  In  accordance  with  the  differ- 
ence of  meaning  thus  indicated,  it  has  been  remarked 
that  the  second  verb  is  frequently  used  in  the  impera- 
tive, the  first  never. 

While  the  substantive  for  "  unbelief"  and  the  verb 

*  ^era^eAo^at  and  jxerauoew. 


The  English  Neiv  Testament.  125 

for  "  to  believe  not "  are  always  correctly  rendered  in 
the  Authorised  Version,  there  are  two  other  related 
words  *  sometimes  confounded  with  these  that  should 
invariably  be  translated  "disobedience"  and  ''to  obey 
not."  This  is  the  rendering  given  at  Eph.  ii.  2, 
I  Peter  ii.  8,  and  other  passages ;  but  at  Heb.  iv.  6, 
Rom.  xi.  30,  &c.,  we  find  them  translated  "unbehef" 
and  "  believe  not."  This  inconsistency  has  been  cor- 
rected throughout  the  Revised  Version ;  and  the  point 
is  of  some  importance,  since  unbelief  and  disobedience 
are  not  identical,  but  the  one  is  the  source  of  the  other. 
In  one  passage,  John  xiii.  10,  the  rendering  of  two 
different  verbs  f  by  the  same  English  word  has  led  to 
an  almost  complete  obscuration  of  the  sense.  Let  any 
one  read  the  Authorised  Version,  "  He  that  is  washed 
needeth  not  save  to  luash  his  feet,"  and  scarcely  any 
point  will  be  seen  in  the  words.  But  let  him  turn  to 
the  Revised  Version,  and  read,  "He  that  is  bathed 
needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet,"  and  the  force  of 
our  Lord's  statement  will  at  once  be  apprehended. 
He  will  see  that  as,  literally,  the  man  who  has  been 
bathed  needs  only  to  wash  his  feet  from  the  defile- 
ment which  has  been  contracted  since  leaving  the 
bath,  so,  spiritually,  the  believer  in  Christ,  who  has 
been  cleansed  from  guilt  by  faith,  needs  not  to  have 
that  process  repeated,  but  simply  requires,  from  day  to 

*  d7rei9eia  and  aituQiu.  f  K^Kovixivos  and  yixpaaOai. 


126         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

day,  to  be  freed  from  the  pollution  which  is  contracted 
as  he  journeys  through  the  world. 

There  are  two  nouns  translated  "  knowledge,"  and 
two  related  verbs  translated  "  know,"  *  which  it  is 
sometimes  important  to  distinguish.  The  one  form  of 
the  words  is  simple,  the  other  is  a  compound  with  a 
preposition.  The  compound  words  denote  full 
Christian  knowledge.  In  one  passage,  2  Cor.  vi.  9, 
the  Authorised  Version  acknowledges  the  intensified 
meaning  given  to  the  verb  by  the  preposition :  "  as  un- 
known, and  yet  well  known  /"  but  in  other  passages, 
as  I  Cor.  xiii.  12,  this  is  overlooked.  We  ought  also 
to  read  at  Eph,  i.  17,  as  in  the  Revised  Version,  "  the 
/////  k?iowledge  of  him,"  as  being  the  great  object  of  the 
Apostle's  desire  for  those  who  already  have  come  to  a 
saving  knowledge  of  the  truth.  In  other  passages  the 
necessity  for  change  is  not  so  obvious. 

Much  obscurity  results  from  the  manner  in  which 
the  word  "will"  is  used  in  the  Authorised  Version. 
It  is,  of  course,  the  sign  of  the  English  future,  but 
besides  that  it  does  service  as  the  representative  of 
two  different  Greek  verbs,  t  These  verbs  cannot 
always  be  distinguished  in  our  language,  but  at  least 
it  may  be  made  sure  that  they  are  not  mistaken  for 
the  mere  sign  of  the  future.     Thus  the  important  text, 

*  yi'uici.s  and  iniyvooffis  ;  yiyuxriccc  and  iTnyiV(.-.cnc(c, 
f  0€Aco  and  QovXouai. 


The  English  New  Testament.  127 

John  vii.  17,  becomes  much  clearer  to  the  English 
reader  Avhen  it  is  read,  as  in  the  Revised  Version,  "  It 
any  man  wiUetJi  to  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the 
teaching,"  &c.  So  the  meaning  of  i  Tim.  vi.  9 
becomes  more  obvious  when  we  read  instead  of  "they 
that  will  be  rich,"  ''they  that  desire  to  be  rich."  Some 
other  passages,  as  Matt.  v.  40,  are  made  clearer  by  the 
use  of  "would"  instead  of  "will."  See  again  Acts 
xxii.  28,  &c. 

The  word*  most  frequently  rendered  "miracle," 
or  "miracles,"  occurs  seventeen  times  in  St.  John's 
Gospel,  thirteen  times  in  St.  Matthew,  eleven  times 
in  St.  Luke,  and  seven  times  in  St.  Mark.  Now,  it  is 
a  curious  fact  that,  while  this  word  is  rendered 
"  miracle,"  or  "  miracles,"  thirteen  times  in  St.  John's 
Gospel,  that  rendering  is  not  once  given  it  in  the 
other  Gospels,  except  at  Luke  xxiii.  8.  In  every 
other  passage  it  is  translated  sign^  or  signs ;  and  such 
is  the  rendering  which  should  have  been  preserved 
throughout.  The  wordf  which  properly  means 
"miracles,"  /.d,  marvellous  works,  occurs  but  three 
times  in  the  Gospels — Matt.  xxiv.  24,  Mark  xiii.  2i'^^ 
John  iv.  48 — and  never  with  reference  to  the  works 
which  Christ  performed.  It  is,  therefore,  to  be  re- 
gretted that  a  word  which  simply  suggests  what  is 
strange   or  wonderful  should  have  such  prominence 

*  <r7}/A.e7ov.  f  repas. 


128         Companion  to  the  Revisea   Version  of 

assigned  to  it  in  connection  with  the  works  of  Christ. 
These  were  "  signs"  rather  than  "  miracles" — signs  of 
the  Divine  presence  fitted  to  impress  the  hearts  of 
men,  and  not  thaumaturgic  acts  which  might  excite 
only  marvelling  or  admiration.  The  other  word*  some- 
times translated  "  miracle/'  as  at  Mark  ix.  39,  does 
not  occur  in  St.  John's  Gospel  at  all.  It  is  usually 
rendered  "mighty  work,"  and  this  translation  generally 
answers  well,  as  at  chap.  vi.  5,  &c.  But  it  must  be 
observed  that  at  Matt.  xiv.  2  and  Mark  vi.  14  the 
Authorised  Version  is  incorrect,  the  proper  translation 
being  "  these  powers  work  in  him."  It  would  have 
been  well  also  that  the  rendering  "  mighty  work  "  had 
been  kept  in  many  other  places  where  it  has  been  sup- 
planted by  "miracle."  This  latter  word,  however, 
must  almost  of  necessity  be  allowed  to  stand  in  such 
passages  as  Acts  xix.  11,  i  Cor.  xii.  29. 

In  the  Authorised  Version,  at  John  xvii.  12  we 
read  as  follows  : — "  While  I  was  with  them  in  the 
world,  I  kept  them  in  thy  name :  those  that  thou 
gavest  me  I  have  kept,  and  none  of  them  is  lost,  but 
the  son  of  perdition."  The  two  Greek  verbs f  here 
both  rendered  "  kept "  have  clearly  different  shades  of 
meaning,  and  to  bring  out  these  with  precision  adds 
to  the  beauty  of  the  verse.  The  first  one  may  be 
allowed  to  stand  as  "  kept,"  but  the  second  means 

*  hvvxjxis.  1"  TTjpeco  and  (pvXaffffU). 


The  English  New  Testa ??ienL  129 

guarded,  and  should  be  so  rendered.  It  is  then  seen 
that  the  clauses  are  very  closely  connected :  the 
watchful  guardianship,  spoken  of  in  the  second  clause 
as  having  been  exercised  by  Christ  over  His  disciples, 
being  the  cause  of  the  safety  belonging  to  them  which 
is  spoken  of  in  the  first. 

The  very  impressive  utterance  of  our  Lord  at  John 
viii.  58  has  not  been  altered  in  the  text  of  the 
Revised  Version,  but  a  highly  important  note  has  been 
placed  on  the  margin.  When  we  read  the  words, 
"  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am^^  there  is  nothing  in  the 
English  which  suggests  that  the  word  "  was "  means 
"  came  into  being,"  while  the  expression  "  I  am  " 
denotes  absolute  existence.  The  two  verbs*  are 
totally  different  in  the  original,  and  a  marked  contrast 
is  implied  between  Abraham,  a  created  being,  and  the 
uncreated  Son  of  God. 

There  are  four  different  words  translated  "people" 
in  the  Authorised  Version.  Each  of  these  terms  has 
its  own  special  meaning,  but  it  is  impossible  fully  to 
preserve  the  distinction  between  the  words  in  English. 
Two  of  them  especially  run  together,  and  no  attempt 
has  been  made  to  distinguish  these  in  the  Revised 
Version.  The  third  term  is  generally  rendered 
*'  Gentiles,"  or  "  nations,"  and  is  only  once  translated 
"people,"  at  Acts  viii.  9.     But  the  fourtht  has  often, 

*  yiuo/xai.  and  elfii.  f  ox^os. 

J 


130  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

without  cause,  been  so  rendered,  as  at  John  vli.  20 
and  many  other  places.  It  always  means  the  "  com- 
mon people,"  as  distinguished  from  those  possessed 
of  rank  or  authority,  and  should  be  translated 
"  multitude,"  or  multitudes,"  as  it  has  been  through- 
out the  Revised  Version. 

We  find  five  distinct  verbs  translated  "  teach " 
in  the  Authorised  Version.  One  of  these  occurs 
with  that  rendering  only  in  a  single  passage,  Acts 
xvi.  21,  and  is  there  better  translated,  "set  forth." 
Two  others  are  found  twice  with  the  rendering 
"  teach,"  or  "  taught,"  and  may  be  allowed  so  to 
stand ;  but  the  remaining  two*  should  be  carefully 
distinguished.  One  is  the  word  properly  denoting 
"  teach,"  and  occurs  in  multitudes  of  passages  j  the 
other  is  a  much  rarer  word,  being  used  only  four 
times  in  the  New  Testament.  It  means  "to  make 
disciples,"  and  is  clearly  distinguished  from  "to 
teach"  at  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20,  though  the  two  are 
confounded  in  the  Authorised  Version.  The  passage 
should  be  rendered,  "Go  ye  therefore,  and  niake 
disciples  of  all  the  nations  .  .  .  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  commanded  you;"  and 
m  the  other  passages — Matt.  xiii.  52,  xxvii.  57 ;  Acts  xiv. 
21 — where  the  word  occurs  the  same  strict  rendering 
will  be  found  given  to  it  in  the  Revised  Version. 
•  SiSoa/cw  and  ixaOijT^vw, 


The  English  New  Testament,  131 

There  are  some  passages  in  which  a  reader  of  the 
Authorised  Version  is  almost  sure  to  imagine  that 
there  is  some  connection  between  difierent  words, 
from  the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  translated. 
This  may,  for  instance,  be  the  case  at  James  i.  6, 
where  these  words  occur :  "  He  that  wavereth  is  like  a 
7£'^z/(?of  the  sea  driven  with  the  wind  and  tossed."  There 
is  no  connection  whatever  between  the  words  7vave  and 
wavereth  ;  and  the  passage  stands  thus  in  the  Revised 
Version  :  "  He  that  doubteth  is  like  the  surge  of  the 
sea  driven  by  the  wind  and  tossed."  So  again,  at 
Rom.  xii.  2,  where  these  words  occur  in  the  Autho- 
rised Version  :  "  Be  not  conformed  to  this  world  :  but 
be  ye  transformed  by  the  renewing  of  your  mind." 
Here  there  is  no  connection  in  the  original  between  the 
terms*  rendered  "  conformed  "  and  "  transformed,"  as 
might  be  inferred  from  the  sound  of  the  words  in 
English.  The  passage  is  thus  rendered  in  the  Revised 
Version  :  "  Be  not  fashioned  according  to  this  world, 
but  be  ye  transformed  by  the  renewing  of  your  mind." 

It  is  well  known  that  two  very  different  Greek 
wordst  are  alike  rendered  "devil"  in  the  Authorised 
Version.  There  is,  first,  the  word  which  occurs  in  such 
passages  as  Matt.  iv.  i,  John  xiii.  2,  &c.,  and  which 
has  reference  to  the  prince  of  darkness.     Next  there 

*  cycrx^ytiaTt^eo'^at  and  iJ,eTa/j.op(pov(T6ai, 
f  Sidfiokos  and  Sai/xovioVf  or  SaifidiP, 

J2 


132         Conipafiwn  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

is  the  word  which  is  literally  "  daemon,"  and  which  is 
so  often  used  in  connection  with  those  unhappy  beings 
who  are  described  as  daemonized,  or  ''  possessed  of 
devils."  This  "possession  was  a  disease  like  epi- 
lepsy, for  the  victim  was  '  healed,'  and  some  kind  of 
insanity,  for  the  '  right  mind '  was  restored.  But  it 
was  something  more — the  intrusion  of  an  alien  force 
into  the  nervous  system,  impeding  sensation,  so  that 
the  patient  was  deaf  and  dumb  ;  with  perfect  organs, 
but  without  power  to  use  them ;  his  will  overlorded 
(Acts  X.  38)  by  an  alien  might,  which  created  the 
confusion  of  an  apparently  dual  consciousness.  The 
rendering  of  the  two  distinct  terms  by  the  same  word 
obliterates  a  very  marked  distinction  to  the  English 
reader.'^*  It  is,  indeed,  much  to  be  regretted  that  the 
word  "  daemon  "  was  not  introduced  into  the  earliest 
versions  of  the  New  Testament  which  were  made 
into  our  language.  Had  that  been  done,  the  ex- 
pression would  soon  have  established  itself  as  clearly 
marking  a  distinction  between  the  evil  spirits  so  named 
and  the  great  adversary — the  devil.  In  the  Revised 
Version  the  common  rendering  has  been  retained  as 
now  almost  a  matter  of  necessity,  but  wherever  the 
word  "  daemon"  has  been  translated  "devil  "  the  lact 
is  indicated  on  the  margin. 

There  is  a  simple  Greek   verb  which  is  usually 

*  Eadie's  English  Bidle,  ii.  433, 


The  English  New  Testa fnejtt  133 

and  properly  translated  "  judge,"  hut  it  is  erroneously 
rendered  "condemn"  at  John  iii.  17,  18.  In  like 
manner,  the  simple  substantives  connected  with  it  are 
generally  represented  by  "judgment"  in  English,  but 
improperly  by  "  damnation  "  at  Matt,  xxiii.  ^t,,  Mark 
xii.  40,  and  other  places.  On  the  other  hand,  a  com- 
pound of  the  verb  referred  to  with  a  preposition  is 
somewhat  inexactly  rendered  by  "judge"  at  i  Cor. 
iv.  3,  4.  ij.  although  all  that  has  there  been  done  in 
the  Revised  Version  is  to  place  another  translation  on 
the  margin.  The  reference  seems  to  be  to  the  pre- 
liminary examination  of  accused  persons — what  is 
known  in  Scotch  law  as  a  "  precognition."  We  have 
an  example  of  this  at  Acts  xxv.  26  ;  but,  however 
useful  this  rnay  be  in  human  affairs,  the  Apostle  pro- 
tests against  it  in  matters  spiritual  as  an  unwarrantable 
anticipation  of  the  judgment  of  the  great  day.  There 
is  another  compound  of  the  same  verb  which  is  also 
improperly  rendered  "judge"  at  i  Cor.  xi.  31;  it 
should  be  translated  "discern,"  as  in  ver.  29.  A  third* 
compound  is  correctly  rendered  "  condemn,"  as  at 
Matt.  xii.  41  and  most  other  passages,  but  "damned," 
which  occurs  at  Mark  xvi.  16  and  Rom.  xiv.  23,  is 
now  too  strong  an  expression,  and  has  been  avoided 
in  the  Revised  Version. 

*  The  several  Greek  terms  are  Kplyw,  Kpi/ia,   Kpiais,  avaKpiw 
hioLHpivu),  KaraKpivo}. 


134         Cojnpanion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

Three  words*  are  in  common  translated  "bright- 
ness "  in  the  Authorised  Version  which,  nevertheless, 
admit  of  being  easily  distinguished.  One  of  the  ex- 
pressions occurs  in  that  striking  passage,  Heb.  i.  3, 
in  which  we  read  of  Christ,  "  Wlio  being  the  brightness 
of  his  glory,"  &c.  Here  the  word  might  be  mistakenly 
supposed  to  mean  a  reflected  splendour,  but  the  true 
meaning  is  a  radiance  which  is  flashed  forth;  and 
therefore  the  translation  "  effulgence "  has  been 
adopted  in  the  Revised  Version,  At  Acts  xxvi.  13, 
on  the  other  hand,  "brightness"  is  the  exact  trans- 
lation of  the  Greek,  while  at  2  Thess.  ii.  8  it  is  totally 
wrong,  and  must  give  place  to  some  such  word  as 
*'  manifestation." 

The  Greek  words  which  denote  the  act  of  dying 
and  the  state  of  death  respectively  have  not  unfre- 
quently  been  confounded  in  the  Authorised  Version, 
sometimes  to  the  great  obscuration  of  the  sense.  Thus, 
the  constantly  recurring  words  "are  dead,"  in  Rom. 
vi.  2,  &c.,  should  be  translated  "died."  This  emen- 
dation is  specially  important  at  2  Cor.  v.  14,  where 
the  common  rendering,  "  We  thus  judge,  that  if  one 
died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead,'^  completely  ruins  the 
sense.  It  should  be,  "  We  thus  judge,  that  one  died 
for  all,  therefore  all  died^'i — that  is,  all  believers  died 
in  and  with  Christ. 

*  air avyarrixa,  Xa/iTrpJrrjs,  ^Tri(pdvtia,  i"  iireOayoy. 


The  E72glish  New  Testament,  135 


CHAPTER    V. 

CORRECTION    OF    NEEDLESS    VARIATIONS    IN    THE 
TRANSLATION    OF   THE    SAME   GREEK   WORDS. 

Tins  is  the  opposite  error  to  that  which  was  con- 
sidered in  the  precedhig  chapter,  and  is  not  less  to  be 
regretted.  It  is  even  more  characteristic  of  the 
Authorised  Version  than  the  former,  for  it  was  com- 
mitted of  set  purpose  by  our  translators.  They  do 
not  say  that  they  wilfully  confounded  one  Greek  word 
with  another  in  their  translation ;  but  they  do  tell  us 
that  it  was  one  of  the  principles  of  their  work  to  vary 
in  the  renderings  which  were  given  in  different 
passages  to  the  same  words  in  the  original.  In  their 
noble  preface,  entitled  "The  Translators  to  the 
Reader,"  they  say,  towards  the  close :  "  Another 
thing  we  think  good  to  admonish  thee  of,  gentle 
reader,  that  we  have  not  tied  ourselves  to  an  uni- 
formity of  phrasing  or  to  an  identity  of  words,  as 
some,  peradventure,  would  wish  that  we  had  done, 
because  they  observe  that  some  learned  men  some- 
where have  been  as  exact  as  they  could  that  way. 


136         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

Truly,  that  we  might  not  vary  from  the  sense  of  that 
which  we  had  translated  before,  if  the  word  signified 
the  same  thing  in  both  places  (for  there  be  some 
words  that  be  not  of  the  same  sense  everywhere),  we 
were  especially  careful,  and  made  a  conscience  accord- 
ing to  our  duty.  But  that  we  should  express  the  same 
notion  in  the  same  particular  word — as,  for  example,  if 
we  translate  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  once  by  purpose^ 
never  to  call  it  intent ;  if  one  \NhQXQ  journeying,  never 
travelling ;  if  one  where  thiiik,  never  suppose;  if  one 
where /^/;2,  n^.^ ox  ache ;  if  one  where /^j^,  -nQY^r  glad- 
ness,  &c. — thus  to  mince  the  matter  we  thought  to 
savour  more  of  curiosity  than  wisdom,  and  that  rather 
it  would  breed  scorn  in  the  atheist  than  bring  profit  to 
the  godly  reader.  For  is  the  kingdom  of  God  become 
words  or  syllables?  Why  should  we  be  in  bondage  to 
them  if  we  may  be  free  ?  use  one  precisely  when  we 
may  use  another  no  less  fit  as  commodiously  ?  .  .  . 
"We  might  also  be  charged  (by  scoffers)  with 
some  unequal  dealing  towards  a  great  number  of  good 
English  words.  For  as  it  is  written  of  a  certain  great 
philosopher  that  1-"  should  say  that  those  logs  were 
happy  that  were  made  images  to  be  worshipped,  for 
their  fellows,  as  good  as  they,  lay  for  blocks  behind 
the  fire,  so  if  we  should  say,  as  it  were,  unto  certain 
words,  Stand  up  higher,  have  a  place  in  the  Bible 
always ;  and  to  others  of  like  quality,  Get  you  hence 


The  E?igHsh  New  Testavient.  137 

be  banished  for  ever,  we  might  be  taxed,  peradven- 
ture,  with  St.  James's  words,  namely,  ^  To  he  partial  in 
ourselves^  and  judges  of  evil  thoughts^  " 

Now,  it  must  readily  be  granted  that,  to  some 
extent,  this  variety  of  rendering  was  not  only  justifiable 
but  necessary.  It  is  most  certain  that  the  same  Greek 
word  has  not  always  the  same  meaning  in  different 
places ;  to  insist,  therefore,  on  always  rendering  it  by 
the  same  word  in  English  would  be  absurd.  This 
appears  clearly  enough  from  the  variety  of  senses  which 
one  word  may  possess  in  our  own  language.  Take,  e.g.^ 
the  one  expression  "  post,"  and  consider  how  varied 
is  its  signification  in  such  phrases  as  "  He  held  that 
post,"  "  He  missed  the  post,"  "  He  fixed  the  post," 
*'  He  travelled  post,"  &c.  All  these  varying  significa- 
tions of  the  word  would  of  necessity  require  the  use  of 
different  terms  in  translating  the  English  phrases  into 
another  language.  And  so  is  it  with  Greek  when 
rendered  into  English.  Different  words  must  be 
chosen  at  different  places  to  represent  the  original 
according  to  the  exigencies  of  the  several  passages. 
Tims,  the  same  verb  which  is  properly  rendered  by 
*'  comfort "  at  Matt.  v.  4,  &c,,  must  be  translated  by 
"beseech"  at  Matt.  viii.  5,  &c.,  and  by  "exhort"  at 
I  Peter  v.  i,  &c.  Thus,  too,  the  noun  which  is 
rendered  "kind  "  at  Matt.  xiii.  47,  &c.,  must  be  trans- 
lated by  such  a  word  as  "race"  at  Acts  vii.  13,  &c.. 


138         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

and  "offspring"  at  Acts  xvli.  28,  &c.  No  one,  there- 
fore, would  insist  on  the  same  EngHsh  word  being 
used  for  the  same  Greek  word  in  all  passages.  Varia- 
tion is  to  some  extent  an  absolute  necessity,  and  the 
only  question  is  whether  our  translators  have  varied 
their  renderings  unnecessarily  and  unreasonably,  so  as, 
in  fact,  to  have  diminished  the  value  of  their  work. 
That  such  is  in  reality  the  case  will  become  plain  to 
every  one  from  the  following  illustrations. 

We  may  begin  by  looking  at  some  passages  in 
which  an  interesting  or  important  truth  is  obscured 
by  the  needless  changes  of  rendering  which  are 
adopted. 

Thus,  at  I  Cor.  iii.  17  we  read  in  the  Authorised 
Version,  "  If  any  man  dejile  the  temple  of  God,  him 
shall  God  destroy. ^^  But  the  Greek  verb  is  the  same  in 
both  clauses,  and  thus  the  solemn  thought  is  suggested 
that,  as  is  the  sin  so  will  be  the  punishment:  God 
will  treat  the  man  as  the  man  has  treated  the  sacred 
temple  of  his  own  soul.  This  correspondence  between 
the  guilt  contracted  and  the  penalty  inflicted  is  entirely 
veiled  from  the  English  reader  by  the  capricious  variety 
of  rendering  adopted,  and  the  same  word  should 
manifestly  be  preserved  in  both  clauses  :  "  If  any  man 
destroyeth  the  temple  of  God,  him  shall  God  destroy." 
Again,  what  reader  of  Mark  xv.  2>i,  "  There  was  dark- 
ness over  the  whole  land  until  the  ninth  hour,"  and  of 


The  English  New  Testament.  139 

Luke  xxlii.  44,  "  There  was  darkness  over  all  the  earth 
until  the  ninth  hour,"  would  imagine  that  the  original 
of  both  passages  is  exactly  the  same?  The  one 
Evangelist  is  made  to  differ  from  the  other  in  a  most 
important  particular  by  the  totally  uncalled  for  and 
unwarrantable  variety  of  rendering  which  is  adopted. 
Either  "  land "  or  "  earth "  (doubtless,  I  think,  the 
former)  ought  manifestly  to  be  chosen  in  both  passages, 
as  well  as  at  Matt,  xxvii.  45.  One  other  example  of  the 
darkening  effect  of  a  needless  variation  of  rendering  is 
found  at  Rev.  iv.  4.  The  Authorised  Version  there 
reads,  "  And  round  about  the  throne  were  four  and 
twenty  seats:  and  upon  the  seats  I  saw  four  and 
twenty  elders  sitting,  clothed  in  white  raiment ;  and 
they  had  on  their  heads  crowns  of  gold."  Under  the 
influence  of  a  timidity  which  shrank  from  appearing  to 
make  creatures  equal  in  dignity  to  the  great  Creator, 
our  translators  have  here  failed  to  do  justice  to  the 
original.  The  word  rendered  "throne  "  and  "seats  " 
is  the  same  in  Greek,  so  that  we  ought  to  read,  "  And 
round  about  the  throne  were  four  and  twenty  thrones^^ 
the  great  Scriptural  truth  being  thus  illustrated  that 
Christ's  redeemed  not  only  see  His  glory,  but  share  in 
it — they  "reign  together  with  him"  (2  Tim.  ii.  12). 
A  like  mistaken  scrupulousness  has  prevented  the 
proper  rendering  "  throne  "  being  given  at  Rev.  ii.  13 
and  xvi.  10.     Instead  of  "  Satan's  seat "  and  "  the  seat 


I40         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

of  the  beast,"  we  ought  to  read,  "  Satan's  throne^''  and 
"the  throne  of  the  beast,"  for  this  rendering  is  in 
keeping  with  the  fact  that  in  the  Apocalypse,  "  as 
nowhere  else  in  Scripture,  is  set  forth  the  hellish 
parody  of  the  heavenly  kingdom  :  the  conflict  between 
the  true  King  of  the  earth  and  the  usurping  king  ;  ''*  the 
mimicking  by  Satan,  in  his  presumptuous  vain-glory  of 
that  real  and  eternal  majesty  which  is  possessed  by 
Christ. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  some  passages  in  which  a 
needless  variety  of  rendering  is  apt  to  suggest  a 
baseless  idea  to  the  English  reader,  or  at  least  to 
blunt  for  him  the  force  of  the  original. 

When  these  words  are  read  at  Matt.  xxv.  46,  "  And 
these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment ;  but 
the  righteous  into  life  eternal^^^  the  English  reader 
can  hardly  fail  to  suppose  that  some  diversity  exists  in 
the  original,  and  thus,  perhaps,  is  led  to  perplex  himself 
as  to  the  difference  of  meaning  between  "everlasting" 
and  "eternal."  But  since  the  Greek  word  is  the  same 
in  both  clauses  the  translation  evidently  ought  to  be 
consistent,  as  in  the  Revised  Version.  Again,  it  has 
frequently  been  noticed  how  capricious  and  hurtful 
are  the  varieties  of  rendering  given  in  the  fourth 
chapter  of  Romans  to  the  one  Greek  word  translated, 
first  of  all,  "  counted  "  in  verse  3.     The  word  occurs 

*  Trench,  On  Authorised  Version^  p.  54. 


The  English  New  Testament.  141 

no  fewer  than  eleven  times  in  the  course  of  the 
chapter,  and  is  variously  translated  "  count"  (ver.  3,  5)^ 
*' reckon  "  (ver.  4,  9,  10),  "impute"  (ver.  6,  8,  11,  22, 
23,  24),  the  version  turning  from  one  expression  to 
another  in  the  most  arbitrary  and  unaccountable 
manner.  It  is  needless  to  say  how  the  English  reader 
is  apt  to  be  confused  by  such  changes,  and  how  much 
is  gained  in  point  of  clearness  by  the  retention  of  the 
same  rendering  throughout.  In  the  seventh  chapter 
of  the  same  Epistle  the  force  of  the  argument  in 
ver.  7,  8  is  greatly  weakened  through  want  of 
uniformity  in  the  rendering.  Words  radically  the 
same  in  the  original  are  variously  rendered  '*  lust," 
*'  covet,"  "  concupiscence,"  in  the  Authorised  Version  : 
thus,  "What  shall  we  say  then?  Is  the  law  sin? 
God  forbid.  Nay,  I  had  not  known  sin,  but  by  the 
law :  for  I  had  not  known  /nst^  except  the  law  had 
said.  Thou  shalt  not  covet.  But  sin,  taking  occasion 
by  the  commandment,  wrought  in  me  all  manner  of 
concupiscence.  For  without  the  law  sin  was  dead." 
How  much  more  clear  and  satisfactory  does  the 
argument  appear  when  we  read,  "  What  shall  we  say 
then?  Is  the  law  sin?  God  forbid.  Howbeit,  I  had 
not  known  sin,  except  through  the  law :  for  I  had  not 
known  coveting,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou  shalt 
not  covet.  But  sin,  finding  an  occasion,  wrought  in  me 
through  the  commandment  all  manner  of  coveting.    For 


142         Compaiiion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

apart  from  the  law  sin  is  dead."  The  same  injurious 
effect  of  what  was,  no  doubt,  intended  as  an  agreeable 
variety  of  rendering  is  noticeable  in  the  second  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians.  That  Epistle  is  remarkable  for 
the  use  of  key-words  (if  we  may  so  call  them)  occurring 
one  after  the  other.  In  the  first  chapter  the  two 
antithetic  expressions  "  comfort "  and  "  affliction  "  are 
repeated  again  and  again  (ver.  4,  6,  &c.)  by  the  Apostle; 
but  the  impression  thus  made  on  a  reader  of  the 
original  is  weakened  to  an  English  reader  by  the 
capricious  substitution  of  "tribulation  "  for  "  affliction," 
and  "  consolation  "  for  "  comfort."  So,  again,  where 
the  Apostle  introduces  the  word  "  veil "  or  its 
derivatives,  at  chap.  iii.  15,  18,  iv.  3,  the  connection 
between  the  verses  is  obliterated  by  the  renderings 
"  with  open  face  "  instead  of  "  with  unveiled  face,"  and 
*'if  our  gospel  be  hid^^  for  ''if  our  gospel  is  veiled.^* 
So  at  several  other  passages  of  the  Epistle. 

With  regard  to  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament, 
it  is  obvious  that  where  these  are  made  in  the  same 
words  in  the  Greek  they  ought  to  be  similarly  given 
in  English.  But  this  is  far  from  being  the  case  in  the 
Authorised  Version.  Thus,  the  great  text,  Gen.  xv.  6, 
is  quoted  four  times  by  St.  Paul  in  the  very  same 
manner  (Rom.  iv.  3,  9,  22  ;  Gal.  iii.  6),  and  each  time 
is  somewhat  varied  in  the  translation:  (i)  "was 
counted  unto  him  for  righteousness,"  (2)  "  was  reckoned 


The  English  New  Testa fiient,  143 

to  Abraham  for  righteousness,"  (3)  "was  impuica  to 
him  for  righteousness,"  (4)  "  was  accounted  to  him  for 
righteousness."  Again,  Deut.  xxxii.  35  is  twice  quoted 
(Rom.  xii.  19  ;  Heb.  x.  30)  in  the  very  same  words, 
yet  it  is  thus  variously  rendered  in  the  two  passages : 
(i)  "Vengeance  is  mine;  I  will  repay,  saith  the 
Lord,"  (2)  "Vengeance  (belongeth)  unto  me,  I  will 
recompense,  saith  the  Lord."  Once  more,  the  same 
arbitrary  variation  of  texts  quoted  from  the  Old 
Testament  in  exactly  the  same  words  occurs  in 
passages  so  near  each  other  as  Heb.  iii.  11  and  Heb. 
iv.  3.  The  words  are  rendered,  (i)  "So  I  sware  in 
my  wrath.  They  shall  not  enter  into  my  rest,"  and 
(2)  "As  I  have  sworn  in  my  wrath,  if  they  shall  enter 
into  my  rest ; "  while  the  last  clause  is  repeated  in  the 
same  form  at  ver.  5,  "  If  they  shall  enter  into  my 
rest."  It  is  well  known  that  this  latter  form  of 
expression,  unintelligible  in  English,  is,  according  to 
Hebrew  idiom,  equivalent  to  a  strong  negative,  so  that 
the  clause  should  always  be  rendered,  "  They  shall 
not  enter  into  my  rest." 

Not  a  word  need  be  said  in  support  of  the  position 
that  parallel  passages  in  the  Gospels  and  other  parts 
of  Scripture,  which  are  expressed  in  the  same  words  in 
Greek,  ought  to  be  similarly  given  in  English.  Any 
other  course  almost  amounts  to  unfaithfulness  to  the 
original  and  cannot  fail  to  mislead  the  reader.     Yet 


144         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

the  Authorised  Version  is  a  very  great  offender  in  this 
respect.  The  lollowing  examples  out  of  many  may 
be  quoted.  At  Matt.  iv.  6  we  find  ''''concerning  thee," 
while  at  Luke  iv.  lo  the  very  same  words  are  rendered 
"  over  thee ; "  and,  in  like  manner,  exactly  coincident 
expressions  are  translated  at  Matt.  iv.  19,  ''^Follow 
me,"  at  Mark  i.  17,  ^^  Come  ye  after  mt  ]^'  at  Matt.  x. 
14,  "the  dust,"  at  Luke  ix.  5,  "  the  zwj  dust ; "  at 
Matt.  X.  22,  "  but  he  that  endureth  to  the  end  shall  be 
saved," at  Mark  xiii.  13,  "but  he  that  shall  endure  the 
same  shall  be  saved;"  at  Matt.  xi.  19,  "behold  a 
man  gluttonous,"  at  Luke  vii.  34,  "  behold  a  gluttonous 
man;"  at  Matt.  xvii.  19,  "apart,"  at  Mark  ix.  28, 
**  privately;"  at  Matt.  xix.  7,  "  a  writing,"  at  Mark  x.  4, 
"a  bill;"  at  Matt.  xxvi.  41,  "  Watch  and  pray,  that  ye 
enter  not  into  temptation  :  the  spirit  indeed  is  willing, 
but  the  flesh  is  weak,"  at  Mark  xiv.  t,?>,  "  Watch  ye 
and  pray,  lest  ye  enter  into  temptation.  The  spirit  truly 
is  ready,  but  the  flesh  is  weak."  And  so  in  a  mul- 
titude of  other  places,  there  not  being  a  single  chapter 
in  the  first  three  Gospels  treating  of  the  same  subjects 
in  which  this  needless  and  hurtful  tendency  to  varia- 
tion is  not  perceptible.  So  is  it,  to  some  extent,  with 
parallel  passages  in  the  Epistles.  Ephesians  and 
Colossians,  2  Peter  and  Jude,  have  many  points  of 
connection  between  themselves,  but  these  are  con- 
siderably obscured  to  the  English  reader  by  varieties 


The  English  New  Testament.  145 

of  rendering  which  are  adopted  for  the  same  words  in 
the  several  Epistles.  Thus,  the  word  which  is  trans- 
lated "  working"  at  Eph.  i.  9  is  given  as  "  operation  " 
at  Col.  ii.  12  ;  "lowliness"  at  Eph.  iv.  2  is  "humble- 
ness of  mind  "  at  Col.  iii.  12;"  compacted  "  at  Eph. 
iv.  6  is  "  knit  together"  at  Col.  ii.  19  ;  "be  obedient" 
at  Eph.  vi.  5  is  "obey"  at  Col.  iii.  22;  "govern- 
ment" at  2  Pet.  ii.  10  is  "dominion"  at  Jude, 
ver.  8;  and  "mist"  at  2  Pet.  ii.  17  is  "blackness"  at 
Jude,  ver.  13.  It  is  evident  to  how  great  disadvantage 
the  English  reader  is  thus  subjected  in  seeking  to 
compare  Scripture  with  Scripture,  and  to  derive  light 
from  one  passage  for  the  full  understanding  of 
another. 

If  not  practically  very  important,  it  is  at  least 
interesting  and  desirable  that  uniformity  of  rendering 
should  be  preserved  in  regard  to  expressions  which 
are  fitted  to  suggest  the  individuality  of  the  sacred 
writers  to  an  English  reader.  They  have  all  a  more 
or  less  marked  style  of  their  own.  St.  Matthew's 
Gospel  is  distinguished  by  a  strong  Hebrew  colouring, 
St.  Mark's  by  a  somewhat  rude  yet  graphic  character, 
St.  Luke's  by  a  comparatively  close  approach  to 
classical  models  of  composition,  and  St.  John's  by 
the  softness  and  fulness  of  its  diction.  Each  of  the 
Evangelists  also  displays  a  predilection  for  certain 
forms  of  expression.     St.  Matthew  generally  uses  the 

K 


146  CompanioJi  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

phrase,  "kingdom  oi  heaven J^  where  the  other  Evange- 
Hsts  have  "kingdom  of  God ;"  the  formula  "gospel  of 
the  kingdom  "  is  also  peculiar  to  him,  and  he  is  very- 
partial  to  the  use  of  the  Greek  particle,  for  "then,"  which 
occurs  no  less  than  Jiinety  times  in  his  Gospel — oftener, 
that  is,  than  in  all  the  other  Gospels  taken  together. 
St.  Mark's  favourite  expression  is  "straightway,"  which 
is  found  more  than  y^r//  times  in  his  Gospel— that  is, 
again,  oftener  than  in  all  the  other  Gospels  put  to- 
gether. Now,  it  is  obvious  that  such  marked  features 
in  the  first  two  Gospels  should  be  preserved,  as  they 
easily  may  be,  in  translation.  But  the  Authorised 
Version  has,  to  a  considerable  extent,  failed  to  do  this 
in  the  case  of  St.  Mark,  by  giving  the  one  word  which 
he  so  constantly  uses  such  varying  translations  as 
"  straightway,"  "  immediately,"  "  forthwith,"  "  anon," 
"  as  soon  as,"  while  the  first  of  these  renderings  might 
have  been  preserved  throughout.  St.  Luke  evinces  no 
very  striking  fondness  for  any  particular  term  or  form 
of  expression  :  his  vocabulary  is  far  wider  than  that  of 
the  other  Evangelists  ;  but  it  may  be  remarked  that 
while  he  is  no  such  mannerist  as  St.  Matthew  or  St. 
Mark,  the  Greek  preposition  for  "  with  "  appears  in 
his  Gospel  oftener  than  in  all  the  others.  St.  John, 
again,  is  at  once  seen  to  delight  in  the  repetition  of 
certain  words,  such  as  to  abide,  and  to  bear  ivitness. 
The  former  verb  occurs  over  forty  times  in  his  Gospel, 


The  English  New  Testament.  147 

and  the  latter  over  thirty  times,  while  its  cognate  sub- 
stantive is  ioMW^  fourteen  times.  But  this  is,  to  a  great 
extent,  hidden  from  an  English  reader  through  the 
variety  of  renderings  admitted  in  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion. For  "abide"  we  have  "remain,"  "tarry," 
"endure,"  "dwell,"  "continue,"  "being  present,"  while 
in  almost  every  passage  "abide"  is  quite  a  satisfactory 
translation.  For  "  witness,"  again,  we  find  the  need- 
less variations,  "  bear  witness,"  "  testify,"  "  bear 
record,"  "gave  "  (in  the  first  Epistle  of  St.  John),  and 
"hath  good  report"  (in  third  Epistle),  while  the  con- 
nected substantive,  "  witness,"  is  every  now  and  then 
replaced  by  "record"  or  "  testimony."  With  respect 
to  St.  Paul,  it  has  been  observed  how  readily  he 
catches  up  and  uses  for  his  own  purpose  an  expres- 
sion which  has  fallen  from  the  lips  of  an  opponent. 
This  may  be  illustrated  by  a  reference  to  Acts 
xxvi.  24,  25,  though  the  point  is  lost  in  our  common 
English  version.  The  same  word  is  used  in  both 
verses ;  and  if  instead  of,  "  Paul,  thou  art  beside  thy- 
self," we  read,  "  Paul,  thou  art  7nad^''  we  then  feel  the 
force  of  the  Apostle's  reply :  "  I  am  not  mad,  most 
excellent  Festus ;  but  speak  forth  words  of  truth  and 
soberness."  All  such  minute  accuracies,  though  they 
may  be  deemed  trifling,  should  be  carefully  attended  to 
in  translation. 

It  is  strange  to  notice  what    different  degrees  of 

K2 


148         ComJ^anion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

force  are  given  to  the  same  word  in  different  passages 
of  the  Authorised  Version.  Thus,  what  is  "  beloved  " 
in  Matt.  xvii.  5  and  Mark  ix.  7  becomes  "dear'  in 
Eph.  V.  1,  while  it  ascends  into  "well-beloved"  at 
Mark  xii.  6,  and  "  dearly  beloved "  at  Rom.  xii.  19. 
No  English  reader  would  imagine  that  it  is  the  same 
word  in  the  original  which  is  thus  rendered  with  such 
varying  degrees  of  intensity.  So  the  term  which 
means  "palsied"  (Luke  v.  18,  &c.)  sinks  into  "feeble" 
at  Heb.  xii.  12.  Tl^is  sort  of  caprice  may  sometimes 
be  found  in  two  successive  verses.  The  word,  for 
instance,  which  is  translated  simply  at  Gal.  iv.  8  "did 
service  "  rises  in  the  following  verse  to  this  rendering, 
"  to  be  in  bondage."  In  parallel  passages,  again,  we 
find  a  varying  force  given  to  the  very  same  words. 
Thus,  what  is  "much  displeased"  at  Mark  x.  41  is 
represented  by  "  moved  with  indignation  "  at  Matt. 
XX.  24,  and  what  is  simply  "chief"  at  Matt.  xx.  27 
becomes  "  chiefest "  at  Mark  x.  44.  A  reflecting 
English  reader  cannot  fail  to  be  puzzled  by  such 
groundless  variations. 

Much  inconsistency  exists  in  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion with  respect  to  the  translation  given  of  the  terms 
Rabbi  and  Rabboni.  Sometimes  the  original  word  is 
retained,  as  at  Matt,  xxiii.  7,  John  i.  2)^^  &:c.;  at  other 
times  it  is  rendered  "Master,"  as  at  Matt.  xxvi.  25  • 
John  iv.  31,  &c.  j  while  Rabbo7ii  is  preserved  at  John 


The  English  New  Testament.  149 

XX.  16,  but  translated  "Lord"  at  Mark  x.  51.  Being 
a  well-known  title  of  respect  among  the  Jews,  the  term 
*' Rabbi "  should  have  been  preserved  throughout;  and 
this  seems  specially  important  at  Matt.  xxvi.  49,  Mark 
XV.  45,  as  suggesting  the  profound  dissimulation  of 
Judas,  who  spoke  to  Christ  in  this  style  of  compli- 
mentary address  while  in  the  very  act  of  betraying 
Him. 

There  are  two  closely  related  words,  which  occur 
at  Acts  xix.  37  and  Rom.  ii.  22,  which  are  so 
differendy  rendered  in  the  Authorised  Version  that  no 
English  reader  would  ever  suspect  any  connection 
between  them.  In  the  first  passage  we  find  "robbers 
of  churches,'^  and  in  the  second  "  dost  thou  commit 
sacrilege  V*  Heathen  temples  are  in  both  cases 
referred  to,  so  that  the  respective  renderings  should 
be  "  robbers  of  temples "  and  "  dost  thou  rob 
temples  ?  " 

Another  passage  may  be  referred  to,  in  the  second 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  in  which  variation  of 
rendering  has  broken  the  unity  and  connection  of  the 
Apostle's  train  of  thought.  Having  spoken  of  the 
solemn  issues  which  hung  on  the  acceptance  or  rejec- 
tion of  the  Gospel  by  those  who  heard  it,  he  exclaims, 
at  chap.  ii.  16,  "And  who  is  sufficient  for  these  things  ?  " 
After  some  intervening  remarks,  introduced  in  his 
own  characteristic  way,  the  Apostle  returns,  at  chap. 


T50         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

iii.  5,  to  the  consideration  of  the  "sufficiency"  refen-ed 
to,  and  gives  an  answer  to  his  own  solemn  question 
in  these  words  : — *'  Not  that  we  are  sufficient  of  our- 
selves to  account  anything  as  from  ourselves;  but  our 
sufficiency  is  of  God,  who  also  ?nade  us  sufficient  as 
ministers  of  a  new  covenant,"  &c.  The  translation 
in  the  Authorised  Version  of  the  last  clause  as 
*'  who  also  hath  7nade  us  able  ministers  of  the  New 
Testament,"  completely  mars  the  harmony  of  the 
passage. 

The  above  examples  are  sufficient  to  show  how 
capricious,  and  often  hurtful,  are  the  different 
renderings  often  given  to  the  same  Greek  word  or 
phrase  in  the  ordinary  English  version.  Many  of  the 
variations  are  harmless  so  far  as  the  meaning  is  con- 
cerned, but  are,  nevertheless,  to  be  regretted  as 
misleading  to  a  reader  who  cannot  consult  the 
original.  When  such  a  reader  finds  at  James  ii.  2  the 
expression  "goodly  apparel,"  and  in  the  very  next 
verse  "gay  clothing,"  would  he  ever  imagine  that 
these  different  terms  are  a  translation  of  the  very 
same  Greek  words  ?  Again,  would  the  thought  ever 
occur  to  him  that  the  word  rendered  "rule"  and 
"line  of  things"  represented  the  same  original  in  the 
following  enigmatical  passage  as  it  stands  in  the 
Authorised  Version ? — "Not  boasting  of  things  with- 
out our  measure,  that  is,  of  other  men's  labours ;   but 


The  English  New  Testament.  151 

having  hope,  when  your  faith  is  increased,  that 
we  shall  be  enlarged  by  you,  according  to  our 
rule  abundantly,  to  preach  the  Gospel  in  the 
regions  beyond  you,  and  not  to  boast  in  another 
man's  Hue  oj  things  made  ready  to  our  hand  "  (2  Cor. 
X.  15,  16). 

After  all  that  has  been  said,  no  sufficient  idea  will 
have  been  conveyed  to  readers  unacquainted  with  the 
subject  of  the  vast  amount  of  unnecessary  variation  in 
the  translation  of  the  same  Greek  words  which  exists 
in  the  Authorised  Version.  Pages  might  be  filled 
with  additional  examples.  The  most  arbitrary  and 
uncalled-for  changes  will  frequently  be  found  in  the 
compass  of  a  few  verses,  or  even  of  the  same  verse. 
Thus,  the  word  rendered  "  profession "  in  i  Tim. 
vi.  12  is  changed  into  "  confession '^  in  ver.  13; 
"jailor,"  in  Acts  xvi.  23,  gives  place  to  "keeper  of 
the  prison"  in  ver.  27.  "God,  even  the  Father,"  at 
Rom.  XV.  6,  &c.,  becomes  "  God  and  the  Father  "  at 
Col.  iii.  17,  and  "the  God  and  Father"  at  i  Pet.  i.  3, 
&c.  The  word  rendered  "  truth  "  in  the  parenthetical 
clause  of  i  Tim.  ii.  7  appears  as  "  verity  "  at  the  close 
of  the  verse ;  and  so  on,  in  almost  innumerable  cases, 
the  variations  generally  having  no  ground  of  advan- 
tage or  necessity,  and  serving  only  to  bewilder  and 
mislead  the  English  reader. 

The   great   object   to   be  kept  in  view  in  every 


152         Covipanioii  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

translation  is  to  place  the  reader  of  it  as  nearly  as 
possible  on  a  footing  of  equality  with  one  who  has 
access  to  the  original.  This  is  especially  desirable  in 
regard  to  a  version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Those 
who  have  the  privilege  of  reading  God's  Word  in  the 
form  in  which  it  came  from  Himself  ought  to  recog- 
nise it  as  their  bounden  duty  to  do  their  utmost  that 
their  less  favoured  brethren  may  have  as  exact  and 
accurate  a  transcript  of  the  original  in  their  own 
language  as  can  be  furnished.  To  secure  this  object, 
scholarship  may  worthily  put  forth  all  its  powers  and 
diligence  strain  its  efforts  to  the  uttermost.  The 
plain  man's  Bible—  though  it  cannot  be  all  to  him  that 
the  original  is  to  the  scholar — should,  at  least,  contain 
no  obscurities  or  errors  which  erudition  and  pains- 
taking are  able  to  remove.  It  should  be  such,  for 
example,  as  that  he  shall  have  it  in  his  power,  through 
consistency  of  translation,  to  form  an  opinion  re- 
specting the  questions  discussed  in  connection  with 
the  verbal  agreements  and  differences  found  in  the 
first  three  Evangelists.  It  should  be  such  that  he  will 
be  able,  by  means  of  a  Concordance,  to  compare 
passages  in  which  the  same  word  occurs,  and  thus  to 
make  them  mutually  explanatory  of  each  other.  For 
the  reasons  that  have  been  stated  this  cannot  be  done 
with  any  certainty  while  using  the  ordinary  English 
translation,  since  in  it  there  is,  on  the  one  hand,  an 


The  English  New  Testament.  153 

unnecessary  confounding  of  one  Greek  word  with 
another  in  the  rendering  which  is  given  ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  is  a  vast  amount  of  needless  varia- 
tion in  the  translation  of  the  same  Greek  words ;  but 
both  these  causes  of  possible,  or  certain,  mistake 
have  been  guarded  against  in  the  Revised  Version. 


PART    III. 


THE  ANGLO-AMERICAN  REVISION. 

I. — THE    ENGLISH    VERSION    OF    161I. 

The  English  version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  now  in 
common  use  was  prepared,  on  the  basis  of  previous 
versions,  by  a  large  body  of  divines  and  scholars  of 
the  Church  of  England,  appointed  by  King  James  the 
First,  whose  name  it  bears.  His  connection  with  it, 
however,  is  only  nominal.  He  accepted  at  the  Hamp- 
ton Court  Conference,  in  January,  1604  (from  vanity 
and  policy,  rather  than  from  any  higher  motive),  the 
suggestion  of  Dr.  Reynolds  (President  of  Corpus 
Christi  College,  Oxford),  but  gave  the  work  no  pecu- 
niary aid,  and  no  sanction  after  it  was  finished.  By 
granting  the  request  for  a  new  version  he  pleased  the 
Puritan  party  ;  and,  by  abusing  the  Geneva  version, 
with  its  alleged  "seditious  and  traitorous  notes,"  as 
*'  the  worst "  ever  made,  he  conciliated  the  Conform- 
ists and  allayed  their  suspicion.  Both  parties  heartily 
acquiesced,  and  united  in  what  proved  to  be  a  neces- 
sary and  most  useful  work. 

154 


The  English  New  Testament.  155 

The  revisers  (nominally  fifty-four,  but  actually 
forty-seven  in  number)  were  divided  into  six  com- 
panies, each  being  assigned  a  certain  portion  of  the 
Scriptures,  under  the  restriction  of  fifteen  rules,  and 
met,  two  at  Westminster,  two  at  Oxford,  and  two  at 
Cambridge.  They  received  no  compensation,  ex- 
cept indirectly  by  way  of  preferments,  and  the  nec- 
essary expenses  were  mostly  paid  by  the  publisher, 
Robert  Barker.  Their  names  are  now  forgotten, 
but  their  work  still  lives,  and  will  never  die.  They 
left  us  no  official  record  of  their  labors.  "  Never  " 
(says  Dr.  Scrivener)  "  was  a  great  enterprise  like  the 
production  of  our  Authorized  Version  carried  out 
with  less  knowledge  handed  down  to  posterity  of  the 
laborers,  their  method  and  order  of  working."  Sel- 
den,  in  his  ''  Table  Talk,"  has  preserved  a  hint  as  to 
the  mode  of  proceeding,  saying  :  ''  The  translation 
in  King  James'  time  took  an  excellent  w^ay.  That 
part  of  the  Bible  was  given  to  him  who  was  most 
excellent  in  such  a  tongue  (as  the  Apocrypha  to 
Andrew  Downs),  and  then  they  met  together,  and 
one  read  the  translation,  the  rest  holding  in  their 
hands  some  Bible,  either  of  the  learned  tongues,  or 
French,  Spanish,  Italian,  etc.  ;  if  they  found  any 
fault,  they  spoke  ;  if  not,  he  read  on."  It  is  rather 
strange  that  among  the  modern  versions  he  should 
have  omitted  Luther's  German  version,  vdiich  is  cer- 


156         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

tainly  far  more  important  than  the  ItaHan  and  Span- 
ish. 

The  translation  of  the  vv^hole  Bible  appeared  at 
London  in  161 1,  seven  years  after  the  Hampton 
Court  Conference,  where  it  originated,  in  a  large 
folio  volume,  printed  in  black  letter,  with  an  adu- 
latory dedication  ''  to  the  Most  High  and  IMighty 
Prince  James,  by  the  grace  of  God,  King  of  Great 
Britain,  France,  and  Ireland,  Defender  of  the  Faith," 
etc.,  and  with  a  long  and  learned  preface  by  Dr. 
Miles  Smith,  one  of  the  translators.  It  gradually 
superseded  all  older  translations  by  its  superior  mer- 
its, without  formal  authorization  either  by  King,  Privy 
Council,  or  Parliament,  or  Convocation.  It  derives 
its  authority  from  the  verdict  of  the  Christian  public. 
This  is  the  best  kind  of  authority. 

In  forming  a  just  estimate  of  this  greatest  achieve- 
ment of  the  English  Church,  we  must  first  of  all 
remember  that  it  is  not  a  personal  and  sectional,  but 
a  truly  national  and  catholic  work.  It  cannot  be 
traced  to  any  single  author  or  authors,  like  Wiclif  's 
Bible  and  Luther's  Bible.  It  resembles  in  this  re- 
spect the  Apostles'  Creed  and  the  Anglican  Liturgy. 
It  is  the  mature  result  of  three  generations  of  the 
Reformation  period.  It  gathers  up  the  ripe  fruits  of 
the  previous  labors  of  Tyndale,  Coverdale,  Rogers, 
Cranmer,  the  Bishops'  Bible,  the  Geneva  Bible,  and 


The  English  New  Testament.  157 

the  Rheims  New  Testament.  It  is  especially  in- 
debted to  William  Tyndale  (1525-1535)  ^or  its  idiom 
and  vocabulary,  and  to  the  Geneva  translators  (1560) 
for  its  accuracy.* 

*  In  this  respect  the  king's  instructions  and  his  contempt  for 
the  Geneva  version  were  happily  overruled  by  the  better  knowl- 
edge and  judgment  of  his  translators.  He  ordered  the  "  Bish- 
ops' Bible,"  prepared  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  (1568  and 
1572),  to  be  made  the  basis,  but  it  exercised  far  less  influence 
than  the  more  popular  "  Geneva  Bible,"  which  was  prepared 
by  English  exiles  and  confessors  in  Geneva  under  the  eyes  of 
Calvin  and  Beza,  directly  from  the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek 
throughout  (1557  and  1560),  and  issued  in  more  than  a  hundred 
editions.  The  Roman  Catholic  translation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  M'hich  appeared  at  Rheims  in 
1582  (followed  by  the  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  at 
Douay  in  1610),  is  not  even  mentioned  in  the  instructions,  and 
yet  was  evidently  of  great  use.  The  examples  of  mistransla- 
tions which  Dr.  Reynolds  quoted  at  the  Hampton  Court  Con- 
ference as  arguments  for  the  need  of  a  new  version,  are  all 
taken  from  the  Great  Bible  and  the  Bishops'  Bible,  and  were 
corrected  in  the  Geneva  Bible.  "It  is  obvious,"  says  Dr. 
Moulton  ("  History  of  the  English  Bible,"  p.  207),  "  that  the 
Genevan  and  Rhemish  versions  have  exercised  much  greater 
influence  than  the  Great,  and  Bishops'  Bible."  He  gives  as  a 
specimen  a  passage  from  Isa.  54:  11-17,  which  contains  182 
words  ;  of  these,  86  words  are  the  same  in  five  or  six  English 
versions  ;  96  vary,  and  among  these  variations  more  than  60  are 
taken  from  the  Geneva  Bible,  and  only  12  from  the  Bishops' 
Bible  (pp.  201-206).     No  authority  was   more  frequently  fol- 


158         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

But  upon  the  whole  the  version  of  161 1  surpassed 
all  its  predecessors.  It  is  probably  the  best  version 
ever  made  for  pubHc  use.  It  is  not  simply  a  transla- 
tion, but  a  living  reproduction  of  the  original  Scrip- 
tures in  idiomatic  English,  by  men  as  reverent  and 
devout  as  they  were  learned.  It  reads  like  an  orig- 
inal work,  such  as  the  prophets  and  apostles  might 
have  written  in  the  seventeenth  century  for  English 

lowed,  both  for  text  and  interpretation,  than  Beza  of  Geneva, 
whose  Greek  Testament  (the  fourth  edition,  1589,  and  the  fifth 
edition,  1598)  was  the  chief  basis  of  the  Authorized  Version,  as 
Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  has  shown  (in  Schafif's  essay  on  Revision,  pp. 
xxviii.  sq. ).  Dr.  Westcott  (in  his  ' '  History  of  the  English  Bible, " 
pp.  294  sqq.)  has  proved  by  a  careful  comparison  the  great  and 
beneficial  influence  of  Beza,  both  upon  the  Geneva  Version  and 
the  Authorized  Version.  The  University  of  Cambridge,  in 
thanking  Beza  for  the  valuable  gift  of  Codex  D  of  the  New 
Testament  in  1581,  acknowledges  its  preference  for  him  and 
John  Calvin  above  any  man  that  ever  lived  since  the  days  of 
the  apostles.  (See  Dr.  Scrivener,  "Codex  Bezae,"  Introd.  p. 
vi.,  and  "  Introd.  to  the  Critic,  of  the  N.  Test."  2d  ed.,  p.  112). 
A  number  of  errors,  as  well  as  excellencies,  can  be  traced  to 
Beza,  and  some  have  found  an  injurious  effect  of  his  strong  pre- 
destinarianism  in  the  rendering  of  a  few  passages  (Matt.  20  : 
23  ;  Acts  2  :  47  ;  Heb.  10 :  38)  ;  but  this  may  be  disputed. 
Upon  the  whole,  the  revisers  could  not  do  better  than  follow 
Calvin  and  Beza,  who  were  undoubtedly  the  ablest  biblical 
scholars  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  sixteenth  century. 
Comp.  Eadie,  "  The  English  Bible,"  vol.  ii.  16  sqq.,  30. 


The  English  New   Testament  159 

readers.  It  reveals  an  easy  mastery  of  the  rich  re- 
sources of  the  EngHsh  language,  the  most  cosmopol- 
itan of  all  modern  languages,  and  blends  with  singular 
felicity  Saxon  force  and  Latin  melody.  Even  its 
prose  reads  like  poetry,  and  sounds  like  music.  It  is 
the  first  of  English  classics,  and  the  greatest  modern 
authors  have  drawn  inspiration  from  this  "  pure  well 
of  English  undefiled."  Its  best  recommendation  is 
its  universal  adoption  and  use  in  every  Protestant 
church  and  household  that  speaks  the  English  tongue. 
It  has  admirably  served  its  purpose  for  more  than 
two  hundred  and  fifty  years,  and  is  so  interwoven 
with  English  and  American  literature  that  it  can 
never  be  entirely  superseded.  Next  to  Christianity 
itself,  the  version  of  161 1  is  the  greatest  boon  which 
a  kind  Providence  has  bestowed  upon  the  English 

race.     It  carries  with  it  to  the  ends  of  the  globe  all 

.  *  .  .... 

that  is  truly  valuable  m   our  civilization,  and  gives 

strength,  beauty,  and  happiness  to  our  domestic,  so- 
cial, and  national  life. 

But  with  all  its  acknowledged  excellencies,  it  is 
the  product  of  imperfect  men,  and  has  innumerable 
minor  errors  and  defects.*    This  has  long  since  been 

"■  The  first  two  editions  of  161 1  had  also  a  large  number  of 
serious  typographical  errors,  such  as  "Judas  "  for  "  Jesus  "  (in 
Matt.  26:  36);  "serve  thee"  for  "serve  me"  (Ex.  9:  13); 
"  hoops  "  for  "hooks";  "  plaine  "  for  "plague";  "ye  shall 


i6o         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

felt  by  those  who  know  it  best  and  love  it  most.  It 
may  be  greatly  improved  without  sacrificing  any  of 
its  merits.  God  has  not  seen  fit  to  provide  the 
Church,  by  a  miracle,  with  infallible  translators  any 
more  than  with  mfallible  transcribers,  printers,  and 
readers.  He  desires  a  worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth, 
not  an  idolatry  of  the  letter.  The  translators  had 
sound  principles,  except  that  of  unnecessary  varia- 
tions in  rendering,  and  they  made  the  best  use  of 
their  resources.  But  the  resources  of  the  seventeenth 
century  were  limited  :  biblical  philology,  geography, 
and  archaeology  were  yet  in  their  infancy,  and  com- 
parative philology  and  textual  criticism  were  not  yet 
born.  Since  that  time  biblical  scholarship  in  all  its 
branches  has  made  vast  progress,  especially  within  the 
last  fifty  years.  The  Greek  and  Hebrew  languages, 
with  all  their  cognate  dialects,  are  better  known  now 

not  eat  "for  "ye  shall  eat;"  "shewed"  for  "hewed,"  etc. 
See  a  long  list  in  Dr.  Eadie's  "  The  English  Bible,"  vol.  ii.  291 
sqq.  A  great  many  typographical  blunders  and  variations  crept 
in  in  subsequent  editions.  A  committee  of  the  American  Bible 
Society,  in  examining  six  different  editions  of  the  Authorized 
Version,  discovered  nearly  24,000  variations  in  the  text  and 
punctuation.  See  "  Report  of  the  History  and  Recent  Colla- 
tion of  the  English  Version  of  the  Bible,  presented  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Versions  to  the  Board  of  Managers  of  the  American 
Bible  Society,  and  adopted  May  ist,  1851  "  (printed  in  the 
American  Bible  House,  p.  31). 


The  English  New  Testament,  i6i 

than  ever  before.  The  oldest  and  best  uncial  manu- 
scripts of  the  Greek  Testament  have  recently  been 
discovered  and  thoroughly  examined,  together  with 
the  ancient  versions  and  patristic  quotations.  The 
lands  of  the  Bible  have  been  made  as  familiar  to 
scholars  as  their  native  country,  and  the  Land  and 
the  Book  illustrate  each  other  to  the  present  genera- 
tion as  they  did  to  the  original  readers  on  the  banks 
of  the  Nile,  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Sinai,  on  the  shores 
of  Lake  Gennesareth,  and  the  top  of  Mount  Olivet. 

Hence  the  growing  demand  in  England  and  Amer- 
ica for  a  thorough,  yet  conservative  revision,  that 
shall  be  faithful  to  the  original  Greek  and  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  and  yet  faithful  also  to  the  idiom  and 
vocabulary  of  the  Authorized  Version,  so  as  to  read 
like  a  new  book,  with  all  the  charms  and  sacred  as- 
sociations of  the  old.  In  other  words,  the  age  calls 
for  such  a  revision  as  shall  purge  the  old  version  of 
its  errors  and  inconsistencies,  adapt  it  to  the  lan- 
guage and  scholarship  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
command  the  confidence  of  all  English-speaking 
churches,  and  be  a  new  bond  of  union  and  strength 
among  them. 

This  is  the  sole  object  of  the  revision,  which  was 

undertaken  as  a  common  work  for  the  benefit  of  all 

the  English  readers  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  which 

has  been  carried  on  for  the  last  ten  years  by  about 

II 


1 62         Companio?i  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

eighty  biblical  scholars  of  England  and  the  United 
States. 


II. THE    CANTERBURY    REVISION    OF    1870. 

The  Anglo-American  Revision  originated,  after 
long  and  thorough  discussion  of  the  subject,  in  the 
Convocation  of  Canterbury,  the  mother  church  of 
Anglo-Saxon  Christendom  ;  but  by  a  rare  combi- 
nation of  circumstances  it  assumed  at  the  very  out- 
set an  oecumenical  character,  co-extensive  with  the 
English-speaking  community  of  the  old  and  new 
world.  It  was  first  intrusted  to  a  commission  of  six- 
teen biblical  scholars — eight  bishops  and  eight  pres- 
byters—of the  Church  of  England,  appointed  by 
Convocation,  May  6th,  1870,  under  certain  rules  of 
a  conservative,  yet  more  liberal  character  than  those 
of  King  James.  The  Church  of  England  is  the 
mother  of  the  Authorized  Version,  and  has  an  un- 
doubted right  to  take  the  lead  in  any  movement  for 
an  improvement  of  the  same.  She  still  represents 
the  largest  membership,  the  strongest  institutions, 
the  richest  Hterature,  among  those  ecclesiastical  or- 
ganizations which  have  sprung  from  the  common 
English  stock.  She  would  never  accept  a  revision 
made  by  any  other  denomination.  She  has  all  the 
necessary  qualifications  of  learning  and  piety  to  pro- 


The  English  New  Testa me7it.  163 

duce,  without  foreign  aid,  as  good  a  version  for  our 
age  as  King  James'  revisers  produced  for  their  age. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  clear  that  a 
revision  of  exclusively  Anglican  authorship  could  not 
command  the  confidence  and  secure  the  acceptance 
of  other  denominations.  No  sectarian  version  can 
succeed  even  within  sectarian  limits.  There  is  a 
commonwealth  of  Christian  life  and  scholarship 
which  transcends  all  sectarian  boundaries,  however 
useful  and  necessary  they  may  be  in  their  own  place. 
Times  have  considerably  changed  since  the  reign  of 
King  James,  who  could  conceive  of  no  State  with- 
out a  king,  and  of  no  Church  without  a  bishop,  and 
who,  at  the  Hampton  Court  Conference,  laid  down 
his  short  method  with  Dissenters  in  these  words  :  "  I 
will  make  them  conform  themselves,  or  else  I  will 
harry  them  out  of  the  land,  or  else  do  worse,  just 
hang  them,  that  is  all."  English  Christendom  has 
wonderfully  spread,  and  embraces  now  two  powerful 
nations,  which  have  an  equal  inheritance  in  the  Eng- 
lish Bible,  and  can  justly  claim  a  share  in  its  revision 
for  their  own  use.  The  British  and  American  Bible 
Societies  distribute  more  Bibles  now  in  one  year  than 
were  previously  circulated  in  a  whole  century. 

This  was  felt  by  the  originators  of  the  movement. 
The  Anglican  Committee  was  therefore  clothed,  at  the 
time  of  its  appointment,  with  power  "  to  invite  the  co- 


164         Compaiiion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

operation  of  any  eminent  for  scholarship,  to  ivhatever 
nation  or  religious  body  they  may  belong.''  Under  this 
wise  and  liberal  rule  even  Roman  Catholics  and  Jews 
might  be  invited,  but  catholicity  has  its  limits  in  the 
extent  of  sympathy  and  the  laws  of  co-operation.  We 
must  aim  at  what  is  attainable,  and  not  waste  time 
and  strength  on  Utopian  schemes. 

Accordingly,  at  the  first  meeting  of  the  Committee 
of  Convocation,  under  the  presidency  of  the  late  Dr. 
Samuel  Wilberforce,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  it  was 
resolved  to  enlarge  the  Committee  by  appointing 
about  forty  distinguished  biblical  scholars  of  the  va- 
rious Churches  of  Great  Britain.  A  few  declined 
(among  them  Cardinal  Newman  and  Dr.  Pusey),  but 
most  of  them  accepted,  and  others  were  added. 
Several  changes  have  taken  place  by  death  and 
resignation. 

The  Committee  was  divided  into  two  Com.panies, 
one  for  the  revision  of  the  Old  Testament  (presided 
over  by  the  Bishop  of  Winchester),  the  other  for  the 
revision  of  the  New  (under  the  chairmanship  of  the 
Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol).  They  held  regu- 
lar monthly  meetings  in  the  Jerusalem  Chamber  of 
historic  fame,  and  in  the  Chapter  Library,  belonging 
to  the  Deanery  of  Westminster.  The  members  co- 
operated on  terms  of  equality  ;  but  the  Episcopal 
members  are,  as  may  be  expected,  largely  in  the  ma- 


The  English  New  Testament,  165 

jority.  The  whole  number  of  EngUsh  revisers  in 
1880  amounted  to  52  (27  in  the  Old  Testament  Com- 
pany, 25  in  the  New  Testament  Company).  More 
than  two-thirds  belong  to  the  Church  of  England. 
The  Independents,  the  Wesleyans,  the  Baptists,  and 
the  Presbyterian  Churches  of  Scotland  (which  had 
no  share  in  the  Authorized  Version  except  as  the 
disowned  mother  of  King  James),  are  well  repre- 
sented in  the  Committee.  Among  these  revisers  are 
several  of  the  ablest  and  soundest  biblical  scholars 
of  the  age,  who  would  be  selected  by  all  competent 
judges  as  preeminently  fitted  for  the  task. 

III. — AMERICAN    CO-OPERATION. 

Soon  after  the  organization  of  the  English  Com- 
mittee, a  courteous  invitation  was  extended  to  Amer- 
ican scholars  to  co-operate  with  them  in  this  work  of 
common  interest.  In  view  of  the  great  distance,  it 
was  deemed  best  to  organize  a  separate  Committee, 
that  should  fairly  represent  the  biblical  scholarship 
of  the  leading  Churches  and  literary  institutions  of 
the  United  States.  Such  a  Committee,  consisting  of 
about  thirty  members,  was  formed  in  1871,  and  en- 
tered upon  active  work  in  October,  1872,  when  the 
first  revision  of  the  synoptical  Gospels  was  received. 
It  was  likewise  divided  into  two  Companies,  which 


1 66         Co?npamon  to  the  Revised  Ve?'sion  of 

met  every  month  (except  in  July  and  August)  in  the 
Bible  House  at  New  York  (but  without  any  connec- 
tion with  the  American  Bible  Society),  and  co-oper- 
ated with  their  English  brethren  on  the  same  princi- 
ples and  with  the  intention  of  bringing  out  one  and 
the  same  revision  for  both  countries.  Ex-President 
Dr.  Woolsey,  of  New  Haven,  acted  as  permanent 
chairman  of  the  New  Testament  Company ;  Dr. 
Green,  Professor  in  Princeton,  as  chairman  of  the 
Old  Testament  Company.  The  two  Committees  ex- 
changed the  results  of  their  labors  in  confidential 
communications.  The  New  Testament  was  com- 
pleted in  October,  1880,  just  five  hundred  years  after 
the  first  English  translation  of  the  whole  Bible  by 
Wiclif.  The  revision  of  the  Old  Testament  is  still  in 
progress  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  and  will  be 
finished  in  three  or  four  years. 

If  it  be  asked  by  what  authority  the  American 
Committee  was  appointed,  we  can  only  say,  by  the 
authority  of  the  British  Committee  which  was  vested 
in  it  from  the  beginning  by  the  Convocation  of  Can- 
terbury. The  American  Churches  were  not  con- 
sulted, except  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
which  declined  to  act  officially.  The  selection  was 
carefully  made  from  expert  biblical  scholars  (mostly 
professors  of  Greek  and  Hebrew),  and  with  an  eye 
to  a  fair  representation  of  the  leading  denominations 


The  English  New  Testament.  167 

and  theological  institutions  of  the  country,  within 
the  necessary  limits  of  convenience  for  united  work. 
Experience  and  public  sentiment,  as  far  as  expressed 
have  approved  the  choice. 

There  never  was  a  more  faithful  and  harmonious 
body  of  competent  scholars  engaged  in  a  more  im- 
portant work  on  the  American  Continent.  Repre- 
sentatives of  half  a  dozen  different  denominations — 
Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  Bap- 
tists, Methodists,  Reformed,  also  one  Unitarian,  one 
Friend,  and  one  Lutheran— have  met  for  eight  years, 
and  are  still  meeting  every  month,  at  great  personal 
inconvenience  and  without  prospect  of  reward,  dis- 
cussing innumerable  differences  of  text  and  render- 
ing. Their  simple  purpose  was  to  give  to  the  people 
the  nearest  equivalent  in  idiomatic  English  for  the 
Greek  and  Hebrew  Scriptures,  on  the  basis  of  the 
idiom  and  vocabulary  of  the  Authorized  Version. 
Christian  courtesy,  kindness,  and  genuine  catholicity 
of»  spirit  have  characterized  all  their  proceedings. 
They  will  ever  look  back  upon  these  monthly  meet- 
ings in  the  Bible  House  with  unmingled  satisfaction 
and  thanks  to  God  who  gave  them  health  and  grace 
to  go  through  such  a  difficult  and  laborious  task  with 
unbroken  and  ever-deepening  friendship.  After  con- 
cluding their  work  (Oct.  22,  1880)  the  members  of 
the  New  Testament  Company  parted  almost  in  tears 


i68         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

with  mingled  feelings  of  joy  and  sadness.  Four  of 
their  number  (the  Rev.  Drs.  Horatio  B.  Hackett, 
Henry  B.  Smith,  Charles  Hodge,  and  Professor 
James  Hadley,)  had  died  before,  one  (the  Rev.  Dr. 
Washburn)  died  soon  after  the  completion,  others  are 
near  the  end  of  their  earthly  labors.  But  all  hope  to 
meet  again  where  faith  will  be  lost  in  vision,  and 
where  love  and  harmony  will  reign  forever. 

The  funds  for  the  necessary  expenses  of  travelling, 
printing,  room-rent,  books,  and  clerical  aid  were 
cheerfully  contributed  by  liberal  donors,  who  will 
receive  in  return  a  handsome  memorial  copy  of  the 
first  and  best  University  edition  of  the  Revised  New 
Testament  as  soon  as  issued. 

IV. THE     CONSTITUTION      OF      THE      AMERICAN 

COMMITTEE. 

The  Constitution  of  the  American  Committee  was 
first  submitted  in  draft  by  its  President  to  several 
leading  members  of  the  English  Committee,  in  the 
summer  of  187 1,  and  adopted,  with  some  modifica- 
tions, at  the  meeting  for  organization  on  December 
7th,  1 87 1.     It  is  as  follows  : 

"  I.  The  American  Committee,  invited  by  the 
British  Committee  engaged  in  the  revision  of  the 
Authorized    English   Version    of    the    Holy   Scrip- 


The  English  New  Testament.  169 

tures  to  co-operate  with  them,  shall  be  composed 
of  biblical  scholars  and  divines  in  the  United  States. 

"  II.  This  Committee  shall  have  the  power  to  elect 
its  officers,  to  add  to  its  number,  and  to  fill  its  own 
vacancies. 

"  III.  The  officers  shall  consist  of  a  President,  a 
Corresponding  Secretary,  and  a  Treasurer.  The 
President  shall  conduct  the  official  correspondence 
with  the  British  revisers.  The  Secretary  shall  con- 
duct the  home  correspondence. 

"  IV.  New  members  of  the  Committee  and  corre- 
sponding members  must  be  nominated  at  a  previous 
meeting,  and  elected  unanimously  by  ballot. 

"V.  The  American  Committee  shall  co-operate 
with  the  British  Companies  on  the  basis  of  the  prin- 
ciples and  rules  of  revision  adopted  by  the  British 
Committee. 

"  VI.  The  American  Committee  shall  consist  of 
two  Companies  :  the  one  for  the  revision  of  the  Au- 
thorized Version  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  other  for 
the  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  New 
Testament. 

"  VII.  Each  Company  shall  elect  its  own  Chair- 
man and  Recording  Secretary. 

"  VIII.  The  British  Companies  will  submit  to  the 
American  Companies  from  time  to  time,  such  portions 
of  their  work  as  have  passed  the  first  revision,  and 


lyo         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

the  American  Companies  will  transmit  their  criticisms 
and  suggestions  to  the  British  Companies  before  the 
second  revision. 

"  IX.  A  joint  meeting  of  the  American  and  British 
Companies  shall  be  held,  if  possible,  in  London,  be- 
fore final  action. 

''  X.  The  American  Committee,  to  pay  their  own 
expenses,  and  to  have  the  ownership  and  control  of 
the  copyright  of  the  Revised  Version  in  the  United 
States  of  America." 

The  last  article,  as  far  as  it  refers  to  the  publica- 
tion of  the  revision,  was  abandoned,  by  the  Ameri- 
can Committee  in  the  course  of  negotiations  with  the 
British  Universities,  for  sufficient  reasons,  as  will  be 
shown  below. 

V. THE  RELATION  OF    THE  AMERICAN  AND    ENGLISH 

COMMITTEES. 

The  Americans,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  pre- 
ceding Constitution,  accepted  the  invitation  and 
entered  upon  the  work  with  a  clear  understanding 
that  they  were  to  be  fellow-revisers  with  equal  rights 
and  responsibilities  as  the  members  of  the  English 
Committee  appointed  under  the  rule  of  Convocation. 
No  respectable  scholars  could  have  been  found  to 
bestow   ten   years'   labor  on   any  other   terms ;  nor 


The  English  New  Tesfa?nenf.  171 

would  the  American  churches,  representing  a  larger 
population  than  that  of  England,  ever  accept  a  re- 
vision of  their  Bible  in  which  they  had  no  positive 
share  and  influence.  The  friends  of  revision  con- 
tributed towards  the  expenses  of  the  work  expecting 
it  to  be  a  joint  work  of  both  Committees.  The  whole 
American  community  had  the  same  understanding 
of  the  relation  of  the  two  Committees,  and  this  alone 
accounts  for  the  enormous  demand  of  the  Revised 
New  Testament  in  the  country,  which  has  no  paral- 
lel in  the  history  of  the  book  trade.* 

The  natural  mode  of  exercising  the  full  right  of 
membership  is  by  voting  on  the  changes  to  be 
adopted.  But  absent  members  cannot  vote,  and  the 
intervening  ocean  made  it  impossible  for  the  two 
Committees  to  meet  jointly.  The  9th  Article  of  the 
American  Constitution  contemplates  "  a  joint  meet- 
ing "  to  be  held  in  London  before  final  action,  "  if 
possible."  But  such  a  meeting  was  found  imprac- 
ticable, and  is  superseded  by  another  and  better 
arrangement. 

*We  learn  from  the  New  York  agent  of  the  Oxford  Univer- 
sity Press  that  he  has  good  reason  to  expect  orders  for  200,000 
copies  of  the  Oxford  editions  of  the  revised  New  Testament, 
befoj-e  the  date  of  publication  (May  17),  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  half  a  dozen  cheap  reprints  have  already  been  an- 
nounced all  over  the  country. 


172  Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

Here,  then,  was  a  difficulty,  which  made  itself  felt 
at  an  early  stage  of  the  work.  It  led  to  confidential 
negotiations  which  we  need  not  follow.  They  re- 
sulted at  last  in  an  agreement  with  the  English  Com- 
mittee and  the  Delegates  and  Syndics  of  the  Uni- 
versity Presses  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  as  the 
authorized  publishers  of  the  new  Revision.  This 
agreement,  dated  August  3d,  1877,  seems  upon  the 
whole  to  be  the  best  compromise  that  could  be  made 
in  justice  to  all  the  parties  concerned.  It  is  in  sub- 
stance as  follows  : 

The  English  Revisers  promise  to  send  confiden- 
tially their  revision  in  its  various  stages  to  the  Amer- 
ican Revisers,  to  take  all  the  American  suggestions 
into  special  consideration  before  the  conclusion  of 
their  labors,  to  furnish  them  before  publication  with 
copies  of  the  Revision  in  its  final  form,  and  to  allow 
them  to  present,  in  an  Appendix  to  the  Revised 
Scriptures,  all  the  remaining  differences  of  reading 
and  rendering  of  importance,  which  the  English 
Committee  should  decline  to  adopt ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  American  Revisers  pledge  them- 
selves to  give  their  moral  support  to  the  authorized 
editions  of  the  University  Presses,  with  a  view  to 
their  freest  circulation  within  the  United  States,  and 
not  to  issue  a  rival  edition  for  a  term  of  fourteen 
years. 


The  English  New  Testament.  173 

By  this  arrangement  the  Americans  secured  the 
full  recognition  of  their  rights  as  fellow-revisers.  In 
a  joint  meeting  in  London  the  changes  proposed  in 
the  appendix  would  probably  all  be  voted  down,  for 
the  English  Committee  is  much  more  numerous,  and 
knows  best  what  public  opinion  and  taste  in  England 
require  and  can  bear.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Amer- 
icans may  claim  the  same  advantage  as  regards  the 
views  of  their  countrymen.  In  consideration  of  this 
honorable  concession,  they  were  quite  willing  to 
forego  any  other  advantage. 

The  American  Committee  at  one  time,  as  the  last 
article  in  the  Constitution  shows,  considered  the  ex- 
pediency of  securing  a  copyright  for  the  purpose  of 
protecting  the  purity  and  integrity  of  the  text  against 
irresponsible  reprints,  and  also  as  a  means  to  defray 
the  necessary  expenses  of  the  work,  hoping  to  make 
an  arrangement  with  an  American  publisher  similar 
to  that  of  the  English  Committee  with  the  University 
Presses,  instead  of  relying  on  voluntary  contributions 
of  friends.  Beyond  this  they  had  no  interest  in  a 
copyright,  and  never  thought  for  a  moment  of  using 
it  for  their  own  benefit.  But  after  careful  discussion 
and  reflection  it  was  deemed  best  to  abandon  the 
plan  of  legal  protection,  even  for  the  appendix  (v>hich 
is  exclusively  their  own  literary  property),  and  to 
give  the  revised  Scriptures  free  to  the  American  pub- 


174         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

lie.  The  University  Presses  which  are  the  authorized 
pubHshers  of  King  James's  Version  in  Great  Britain, 
have  the  best  possible  facilities  of  publication,  and 
will  issue  the  revised  New  Testament  at  once,  with 
the  greatest  typographical  accuracy,  in  half  a  dozen 
different  sizes,  and  at  prices  (from  sixteen  dollars 
down  to  fifteen  cents)  to  suit  all  purchasers.  They 
have,  moreover,  a  strong  claim  on  the  public  patron- 
age, in  view  of  their  large  outlay  not  only  for  print- 
ing and  publishing,  but  also  for  the  payment  of  the 
expenses  ($100,000)  of  the  British  Committee,  which 
they  assumed  at  a  time  when  the  success  of  the  en- 
terprise was  altogether  uncertain.  The  American 
Revisers,  having  paid  their  own  expenses  from  vol- 
untary contributions,  are  under  no  obligation  to  any 
publishing  firm. 

The  new  version,  then,  stands  precisely  on  the 
same  footing  with  the  old  version  as  to  copyright.  It 
is  protected  bylaw  in  England;  it  is  free  in  America. 

The  American  Revisers  have  already  been  blamed 
in  some  quarters  for  abandoning  their  undoubted 
right  to  issue  an  authorized  American  edition,  and  to 
protect  their  own  work  against  inevitable  piracy  and 
mutilation.  But  would  they  not  be  still  more  blamed 
if  they  had  given  any  publisher  a  monopoly  over  all 
the  rest  ?  And  what  would  the  Revisers  do  with  such 
a  golden  elephant  as  the  copy  money  for  a  book  of 


The  English  New  Testament.  175 

which  millions  will  be  sold  within  a  few  years  ?  It 
would  be  sufficient  to  start  a  new  Bible  Society  ;  but 
one  national  Bible  Society  is  enough  for  America. 

The  people  at  large  have  certainly  no  reason  to 
complain.  They  will  reap  the  benefit  from  the  plan 
adopted,  which  is  undoubtedly  the  best  for  the  widest 
and  cheapest  possible  circulation  of  the  Revised 
Scriptures  throughout  America  and  the  world. 

Several  American  reprints  have  been  already  ex- 
tensively announced,  and  will  no  doubt  likewise  have 
a  very  large  circulation.  We  learn  that  even  daily 
papers  intend  to  publish  the  Revised  New  Testament 
in  their  Sunday  issues  at  four  or  five  cents.  There 
will  be  more  reading  and  comparative  study  of  the 
Bible  within  the  next  few  years  than  there  has  ever 
been  in  the  history  of  Christianity.  The  publication 
of  the  Revised  New  Testament  will  be  a  republica- 
tion of  the  Gospel.  This  result  alone  will  abundantly 
compensate  for  all  the  time  and  labor  spent  upon 
the  Revision. 

VI. THE    AMERICAN    PART    IN    THE    JOINT    WORK. 

The  Revised  New  Testament,  as  authoritatively 
printed  and  published  by  the  two  English  Univer- 
sity Presses,  is  the  joint  work  of  both  Committees. 
The  English  Revisers  began  a  year  earlier,  and  the 


176         Coifipanion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

American  Revisers  worked  on  the  basis  of  the  first 
English  Revision,  but  they  had  to  go  precisely 
through  the  same  process  of  textual  criticism  and 
exegesis,  to  examine  the  same  authorities,  ancient 
and  modern,  and  to  discuss  the  same  differences  of 
rendering.  They  have  spent  probably  the  same 
amount  of  time  and  labor  since  they  began  to  co- 
operate. They  transmitted  to  England  only  the 
points  of  difference  and  suggestions  of  new  changes. 
These  were  printed  from  time  to  time  for  the  exclu- 
sive use  of  the  Revisers,  and  would  make  altogether 
an  octavo  volume  of  about  four  hundred  pages.  Oc- 
casionally an  elaborate  essay  was  included  in  justifi- 
cation of  a  particular  point,  as  the  difference  of  read- 
ing in  John  1:18  {piovoyerrji  ^eoi,  or  vwi)  ;  on 
Acts  20  :  28  {Beov,  or  KVpiov)  ;  on  Tit.  2:13,  and 
2  Pet.  1:1.  But  in  a  great  majority  of  cases  the  re- 
sult only  was  stated. 

In  order  to  form  a  just  estimate  of  the  American 
share  of  the  work,  and  the  degree  of  harmony  of  the 
two  Committees,  it  is  necessary  to  compare  those 
parts  which  were  done  independently.  For  such  an 
estimate  we  have  the  materials  on  hand. 

When  the  communication  between  the  two  Com- 
mittees was  interrupted  for  a  few  months  in  1877,  the 
American  Committee  took  up  the  first  revision  of  a 
portion  of  Isaiah  and  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 


The  English  New   Testament.  177 

and  finished  them  before  the  first  EngUsh  revision  of 
the  same  books  was  received. 

On  a  comparison  it  was  found  that  in  about  one 
half  of  the  changes  the  two  Committees  had  arrived 
at  the  same  conclusion.  The  result  as  to  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  is  more  particularly  stated  in  the  fol- 
lowing letter  from  the  venerable  Bishop  Lee,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  a  member  of  the  New  Testament  Company  : 

"Wilmington,  Del.,  April  25,  1881. 
"  My  Dear  Sir  :  My  examination  of  the  inde- 
pendent revisions  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  by 
the  English  and  the  American  Companies,  resulted  in 
the  estimate  that  out  of  913  changes  made  by  the 
American  Company,  476  were  exactly  coincident 
with  those  of  the  English.  There  were  others  sub- 
stantially the  same,  but  not  precisely  identical. 

"  The  variations  were  largely  in  punctuation  and 
minor  points. 

"  I  do  not  claim,  of  course,  perfect  accuracy,  but 
I  think  this  statement  is  not  far  from  the  truth. 

"My  estimate  of  the  American  suggestions 
adopted  is,  in 

The  Gospels 3^8 

Acts 186 

Epistles  and  Revelation 400 

904 
12 


lyS         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

"  In  the  calculation  I  aimed  to  count  each  new 
suggestion  but  once,  although  in  many  cases  it  was 
often  repeated — as  food  for  vieat^  hades  for  hell^  tomb 
for  sepulchre^  etc.  I  omitted  returns  to  the  Authorized 
Version,  differences  of  punctuation,  except  in  a  few 
important  instances,  and  metrical  arrangements,  pre- 
suming that  these  would  have  been  done  by  the 
British  Company  even  without  our  calling  their  atten- 
tion to  them. 

''  If  you  wish  for  more  particular  information 
upon  any  of  these  points,  I  shall  be  happy  to  supply 
it  as  far  as  I  can. 

"  Very  truly  yours, 

''  Alfred  Lee." 

Again,  in  the  year  1880,  the  American  Old  Testa- 
ment Company  went  through  the  first  revision  of  the 
Book  of  Job,  and  printed  it  (for  private  use)  before 
the  first  English  revision  of  the  same  book  was  re- 
ceived. Copies  were  transmitted  by  the  President  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  British  Old  Testament  Company, 
February  4th,  1881,  with  the  remark:  "I  send  you 
to-day  by  European  express  twenty-seven  copies  of 
the  American  revision  of  Job,  for  distribution  among 
the  members  of  your  Company.  The  revision  was 
completed  before  your  revision  came  to  hand.  Hence 
it  has  been  printed  in  full,  which  will  give  you  a  better 


The  English  New  Testament.  179 

idea  of  the  character  of  our  work  and  the  measure 
of  its  agreement  with  yours." 

A  careful  comparison  was  made  between  the  Eng- 
lish and  the  American  revision  of  Job  by  the  Rev. 
Professor  Mead,  of  Andover,  Mass.,  a  member  of  the 
Old  Testament  Company,  and  the  result  is  stated  in 
the  following  letter  addressed  to  the  Chairman  of  the 
Old  Testament  Company  : 


''Andover,  Feb.  5,  1881. 

"  My  dear  Prof.  Green  :  .  .  .  You  may  be 
interested  in  knowing  the  result  of  my  collation  of 
the  two  revisions  of  Job.  Of  course  it  is  impossible 
to  be  very  exact,  it  being  often  difficult  to  determine 
how  to  designate  a  change,  or  to  decide  how  far  to 
analyze  a  change — /.  <?.,  whether  to  call  it  one,  two,  or 
three,  when  a  whole  clause  is  transformed.  In  gen- 
eral I  have  adopted  the  plan  of  being  minute  in  the 
matter,  though  doubtless  not  consistent  with  myself 
either  in  this  or  in  any  other  respect.  Still  the  general 
proportion  of  things  is  probably  indicated  with  toler- 
able exactness.  The  result  is  as  follows  : 
Whole  number  of  changes  made  by  the  Ameri- 
can Revisers 1781 

Whole  number  of  changes  made  by  the  English 

Revisers 1004 

Changes  identical  in  both 455 


i8o         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

Changes  substantially  the  same  in  both 134 

Passages  differently  changed  by  both 289 

Changes  in  A.  R,  where  there  are  none  in  E.  R.  913 

Changes  in  E.  R.  where  there  are  none  in  A.  R.  236 

American  readings  found  in  English  margin.. .  53 

English  readings  found  in  American  margin. . .  12 

"  The  general  result  is  that  in  about  half  the  cases 
we  coincide.  More  exactly :  the  identical  changes 
form  about  45^  per  cent,  of  the  changes  made  by 
the  English.  Adding  the  cases  of  substantial  coin- 
cidence, we  have  made  58!  per  cent,  of  the  changes 
which  they  have  made.  In  multitudes  of  other  cases 
there  would  be  a  ready  acquiescence  on  our  part  in 
their  changes — many  of  them  having  reference  to 
very  small  matters,  while  many  of  ours  also  are  of  a 

similar  sort. 

*'  Yours  truly, 

"C.  M.  Mead.'* 

On  the  basis  of  these  facts  it  may  be  said  that  the 
two  Committees,  if  they  had  acted  independently, 
would  have  produced  substantially  the  same  work : 
about  one  half  of  all  the  changes,  and  these  the  most 
important,  being  identical ;  and  the  other  half  being 
mostly  of  such  a  nature,  that  they  would  have  been 
readily  acquiesced  in  by  the  other  party. 

Both  Committees  have,  therefore,  a  perfect  right 


The  English  New  Testament.  i8i 

to  look  upon  the  revision  as  their  own  work.  The 
EngUsh  Committee,  however,  has  a  just  claim  to  pri- 
ority and  a  primacy  of  honor.  The  mother  took  the 
lead,  the  daughter  followed.  The  Americans  gave  to 
the  vast  majority  of  the  English  changes  their  hearty 
approval,  and  the  whole  weight  of  their  independent 
research  and  judgment.  On  the  other  hand,  a  large 
number  of  the  remaining  changes  which  they  regarded 
as  most  important,  have  been,  after  due  deliberation, 
accepted  by  the  English,  so  that,  with  a  few  excep- 
tions, the  points  of  difference  set  forth  in  the  Appen- 
dix are  of  eomparatively  little  interest  and  impor- 
tance. 

As  illustrations  of  these  concessions  made  in  the 
progress  of  the  work.  Bishop  Lee  furnishes  me  with 
the  following  partial  list  of  the  more  important  Amer- 
ican suggestions  on  the  Gospels,  which  have  been 
adopted  by  the  English  Committee  in  the  second  re- 
vision. The  same  changes  in  the  parallel  pages  are 
not  counted. 


VII. — SOME  AMERICAN  SUGGESTIONS  ADOPTED. 

Matthew  i.    i.  The  genealogy,  put  in  margin. 
12.  removal,  put  in  margin. 

22.  For  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet  ;  by,  through 
and  so  2  :  15. 


i82         Companion  to  the  Revised  Ve?'sion  of 

Matt.  ii.    23.  shall :  should  be  called. 

iii.    3.  prepare  ye  :    make  ye   ready,  and  metrical  ar- 
rangement. 
4.  meat :  food  ;  and  so  in  many  places. 
iv.  24.  lunatic  :  epileptic  ;  and  so  elsewhere. 
V.  15.  candle,   candlestick  :  lamp,    stand ;    and   so  in 
Luke  II  :  33. 

25.  lest  :  lest  haply. 
vi.  Several  paragraphs. 

16.  sour  :  sad. 

19.   dig  through,  in  margin. 

26.  much  better  :  of  much  more  value. 

vii.    9.  of  whom  if  his  son  shall  ask  bread  ;    who,  if 

his  son  shall  ask  him  for  a  loaf, 
viii.    6.   Gr.  with  a  word  in  margin. 

18.  multitude  :     great   multitudes  ;     other    shore  : 
other  side  ;  and  so  passim. 
ix.     8.  authority,  in  margin. 

31.  country  :  land. 
X.  21.  and  father    shall    deliver   up   child :     and   the 
father   his    child  ;    and   so  Mark   13:12  ;    or 
put  them  to  death,  in  margin  ;  do.,  and  so 
Mark  13  :  12. 
xi.    5.  the  gospel :  good  tidings  ;  and  in  Luke  7:  22. 
7.  to  look  upon  :  behold  ;  and  Luke. 
10.  order :  prepare. 

17.  Gr,  beat  the  breast,  in  margin. 
23.  hell  :  hades  ;  and  s,o  passim. 

xiii.     I.  the  whole  :  all  the  multitude  ;  shore  :  beach. 
12.  taken:  taken  away. 
15.  Dele  should. 
33.   Margin  is  ;  denotes. 


The  English  New  Testament.  183 

Matt.   xiii.  44.   for  joy  thereof  :  in  his  joy. 

xiv.   19.  sit  down  :  recline,  adopted  in  margin. 

26.  in  their  fear  :  for  fear. 
xvi.    9.  Dele  do  ye. 
xvii.    4.  or  booths,  in  margin, 
xviii.    3.  be  converted  :  turn. 

22.  seventy  times   and   seven,  put   in  margin,  and 
seventy  times  seven  in  text, 
xix.     5.  for  this  :  for  this  cause. 

8.  the  hardness  of  your  hearts  :  your  hardness  of 
heart  ;  and  so  in  Mark  10  :  5. 
XX.  14.   it  pleaseth  me  :   it  is  my  will, 
xxi.  10.  moved  :   stirred. 

24.   thing:   question  ;  marg.,  Gr.  w^ord. 
36.   likewise  :   in  like  manner. 

42.  this  was  the   Lord's  doing  :  this  was  from   the 

Lord  ;   so  in  Mark  12  :  11. 
xxii.  13.  ministers  •  proposed,  attendants  ;  adopted,  ser- 
vants. 
26.  the  seven  :  the  seventh. 

43.  spirit  :   Spirit, 
xxiii.     8.  master  :   teacher. 

xxiv.    8.  pains  :  suggested,  pangs  ;  adopted,  travail, 
xxvi.  16.  betray  :   deliver. 

24.  for  him  if  that  man  had  not  been  born  :  for  that 
man  if  he  had  not  been  born. 

49.  kissed  him  much,  in  margin. 

50.  is  it  this  for  which  thou  art  come  ?  do  that  for 

which,  etc. 
58.  begged  :  asked  ;  and  so  elsewhere. 
67.  guilty  :  worthy  of  death. 


1 84         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

Matt,  xxvii.  6i.  there  was  there  Mary  Magdalene  :  and  Mary 
Magdalene  was  there. 
24.  was  made  :  was  arising. 
28.  Some  anc.  auth.  read  clothed,  margin. 
44.  cast  the  same  in  his  teeth  :  cast  upon  him  the 
same  reproach, 
xxviii.  II.  were  done  :  were  come  to  pass. 
In  Matthew,  126  new  suggestions  adopted,  not  including 
returns  to  Authorized  Version.     New  paragraphs  counted. 

Mark  i.  43.  solemnly  :  suggested,  sternly,  put  in  margin  ;  and 
strictly,  in  text. 
ii.     3.  carried  :  borne, 
iii.    8.  all  the  things  :  what  great  things, 
iv.  30.  place  it  :  set  it  forth. 

39.  arose  :  awoke. 
V.    3.  among  :  in  the  tombs. 

36.  be  not  afraid  :  fear  not. 
vi.    2.  the  many  :  dele  the. 
24.  should  :  shall  I  ask. 
54.  they:  the  people. 
vii.  6,  7.  Metrically  arranged. 

ix.    3.  such  that  no  fuller     .     .     .     can  so  whiten  them  : 
so  as  no  fuller     .     .     .     can  whiten. 
8.  when  they  had  looked  :  looking. 
18.  Substitute  margin  for  text  ;  dasheth  him  down  for 
rendeth  him. 
xii.  10.  so  much  as  this  :  even  this. 
xiii.  20.  should  :  would. 
35.   either  :  whether, 
xiv.  8.  to  :  for  the  burying. 


The  English  New  Testa ??ie?it.  185 

Mark  xiv.  38.  Add  margin,  Watch  ye,  and  pray  that  ye  enter 
not. 
55.  all  the  council :  the  whole  council. 
XV.  37.  when  he  had  uttered     .     .     .     gave  up :  uttered 

a  loud  voice,  and  gave  up. 
Forty-six  new  suggestions  in  Mark  adopted. 

Luke  ii.   2.  Quirinus :  Quirinius. 
9.  stood  over  :  stood  by. 
ig.  sayings  :  add  margin,  Or  things. 
35.  pierce  :  pierce  through. 

49.  about  my  Father's  business,  restored  in  margin, 
iii.    8.  your  repentance  :  put  in  margin, 
iv.  41.  forbade  :  suffered  them  not. 

vi.  35.  Margin,    some  anc.  auth.   read,  despairing  of  no 
man. 
viii.     6.  fell  down  :  fell. 

14.  as  they  go  :  as  they  go  on  their  way. 
ix.    7.  of  :  by,  three  times. 

58.   Margin,  roosting  places  :  lodging  places. 
X.    I.  seventy  and  two  :  dele  and  two  in  text,  and  put  it 
in  margin. 
41.  careful :  anxious. 
xii.  II.  unto  :  before. 

46.  faithless :  unfaithful, 
xiii.    4.  debtors  :  offenders ;  margin,  Gr.  debtors, 
xiv.     I.  chief  Pharisees  :  rulers  of  the  Pharisees. 

23.  compel :  constrain. 
XV.    7.  just :  righteous, 
xvi.    2.  mayest  be  :  canst  be. 

3,   I  cannot  dig  :  I  have  not  strength  to  dig. 
14.  mocked  :  scoffed  at. 


1 86         Co77ipanion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

Luke  xvii.  2.  profitable  :  gain  ;  adopted,  well, 

xviii.    9.  the  rest  :  all  others. 

XX.  16.  God  forbid  :  far  be  it,  adopted  in  margin,  Gr.  be 

it  not  so. 

xxi.  16.  waves  :  swelling  waves  ;  adopted,  billows, 

xxiii.     I.  number  :  multitude  ;   adopted,  company. 

12.  together  :  with  each  other. 

35.  derided  :  scoffed  at. 

55.  sepulchre  :  tomb,  and  elsewhere,  for  /ivr/jt si ov. 

xxiv.  22.  made  us  astonished  :  amazed  us. 

New  suggestions  in  Luke  adopted,  62,  not  including  returns 
to  Authorized  Version  or  metrical  arrangements. 

John  i.     5.  overcame  :    apprehended,  from  margin. 

6.  there  was  :  there  appeared  ;  adopted,  came. 

12.  power  :  right,  from  margin. 

15.  spake  :  said. 

18.  God  only  begotten.     Transpose  text  and  margin, 

33.  Holy  Ghost :  Holy  Spirit. 
42.  (  )  after  Cephas. 

ii.  10.   Largely  :  freely. 

19.  etc.  temple  :  margin,  sanctuary. 
iv.  22.  of  the  Jews  :  from  the  Jews. 

25.  tell  :  declare. 

34.  perfect :  accomplish. 

vi.     I.  over  :  to  the  other  side  of. 
23.   in  [  ]. 

39.  all  which  :  all  that  which. 
66.  after  this  :  upon  this, 
vii.  16.  doctrine  :  teaching. 


The  English  New    Tcslamnit.  187 

John  vii.  22.  Add  margin,  Ye  all  marvel  because  of  this. 

52.  Transpose  margin  and  Text, 

viii.  42.  came  out  :  came  forth. 

xi.  12.  he  shall  be  s::ved  :  he  will  recover. 

20.  Mary  sat  still  :  still  sat. 

50.  for  to  :  that  they  might, 

xii.  28.  from  :  out  of  heaven. 

XV.    3.  even  now  :  already, 

5.  Transpose  text  and  margin,  apart  from, 

xvi.    8.  the  world  of  sin  :  in  respect  of  sin. 

xviii.  12.  Add  margin.  Or  military  tribune,  Gr.  Chiliarch. 

18.  stood  :  were  standing. 

20.  whether  :  where  ;  resort  :  come  together. 

xix.  12.  whosoever :  every  one  that. 

30.  the  ghost :  his  spirit. 
42.  Change  of  arrangement. 

XX.  17.  Add  margin.  Take  not  hold  on  me. 

New  suggestions  adopted  in  John,  84,  not  including  returns 
to  Authorized  Version,  or  substitutions  of  who  or  that  for  which. 

Matthew 126 

Mark 46 

Luke 62 

John 84 

318. 

Bishop  Lee  wishes  it  to  be  understood  that  this  list  of  Amer- 
ican changes  adopted  is  not  complete. 


1 88         Compaiiion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

VIII. — THE    POINTS    OF    AGREEMENT. 

The  changes  in  which  the  two  Committees  have 
agreed,  and  which  distinguish  the  Revised  English 
Testament  from  the  Authorized  Version,  may  be 
classified  as  follows  : 

1.  The  text.  The  oldest  and  purest  attainable 
text  of  the  uncial  manuscripts  is  substituted  for  the 
received  text  of  later  cursive  manuscripts.  This  in- 
cludes omissions  (with  margin,  as  in  Matt.  6  :  13  ; 
John  5:4;  Acts  8  :  37  ;  without  margin,  as  in  i  John 
5  :7,  8),  doubtful  passages  retained  (as  Mark  16  ip- 
20;  John  7:53-8:11),  and  changes  (as  in  Matt, 
19:17;  Mark  3  :  29  ;  Acts  18:5  ;  Rom.  5  :  i  ;  i  Tim. 
3:16;  Rev.  17:8,  and  in  a  great  many  other  pas- 
sages). 

2.  Errors  of  typography,  grammar,  and  translation 
are  corrected.  Examples  :  Matt.  10:4;  H  •  S  ; 
15  :  27;  28  :  19;  Luke  3  :  23;  John  10  :  16  ;  Acts  2  : 3, 
47  ;  3  :  19,  20  ;  26  :  28  ;  Rom.  3  :  25  ;  i  Cor.  4:4; 
Gal.  4  :  13  ;  i  Tim.  6:5;  Heb.  11:13;  i  Pet.  3  :  21. 

3.  Inaccuracies  in  the  rendering  of  the  article,  the 
moods  and  tenses,  the  prepositions,  the  particles, 
etc.,  are  rectified. 

4.  Artificial  distinctions  caused  by  needless  varia- 
tions in  rendering  the  same  word  and  name  are 
removed. 


The  English  New  Testament,  189 

5.  Real  distinctions  of  the  original  text,  which  are 
obliterated  by  rendering  two  or  more  distinct  terms 
in  the  same  way,  are  restored. 

6.  Misleading  and  obsolete  archaisms  are  replaced 
by  intelligible  words. 

7.  The  words  supplied  in  italics  are  revised  and 
greatly  reduced  in  number. 

8.  Sectional  arrangement  is  combined  with  the 
arbitrary  capitular  and  versicular  division,  which  is 
put  in  the  margin. 

9.  Poetical  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament 
are  arranged  as  poetry. 

10.  Alternate  readings,  as  well  as  renderings,  are 
given  in  the  outside  margin. 

These  improvements  occur  on  every  page,  and  al- 
most in  every  verse  ;  but  the  majority  of  readers  and 
hearers  will  scarcely  observe  them,  and  few  of  them 
alter  the  sense  very  materially.  They  may  be  com- 
pared in  this  respect  to  the  150,000  variations  of  the 
Greek  Testament.  They  do  not  change  a  single  ar- 
ticle of  faith,  nor  a  single  precept  of  duty.  And  yet 
in  the  Word  of  God  every  little  thing  is  important,  and 
every  effort  to  bring  our  English  Bible  nearer  to  the 
Greek  and  Hebrew  original  is  thankworthy. 

In  this  vast  mass  of  improvements,  we  may  well 
say,  in  ninety-nine  out  of  a  hundred  changes,  the  two 
Committees  are  agreed.      This  fact  can  scarcely  be 


IQO  Companion  io  the  Revised  Version  of 

overestimated.  It  is  true,  a  very  large  proportion,  we 
may  say,  at  least  one-half,  of  the  changes  had  be- 
come common  property  among  biblical  scholars  be- 
fore the  revision  was  undertaken.  They  had  been 
anticipated  by  textual  critics,  as  Lachmann,  Tischen- 
dorf,  Tregelles  (and  the  advance  sheets  of  Wcstcott 
and  Hort),  by  the  revised  translations  of  Alford, 
Noyes,  Davidson,  Weiszacker,  F.  W.  Gotch,  Benj. 
Davies,  G.  A.  Jacob,  and  Sam.  G.  Green,  etc.,  and 
by  the  Commentaries  of  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Lange 
(the  American  edition,  which  contains  a  revision  of  the 
A. v.),  Alford,  Ellicott,  Lightfoot,  and  many  others.* 
But  the  value  of  the  Anglo-American  Revision  is 
that,  after  the  most  careful  examination,  it  selects  and 

*  The  Rev.  Dr.  Riddle,  a  member  of  the  New  Testament 
Company,  and  a  contributor  to  the  American  edition  of  Lange's 
Commentary,  after  a  cai-eful  comparison,  has  arrived  at  the  con- 
clusion that  on  an  average  more  than  one-half  (from  50  to  75 
per  cent.)  of  the  changes  in  the  English  Revision  were  antici- 
pated in  that  Commentary,  which  was  nearly  completed  (in  the 
New  Testament  part)  before  the  revision  began.  The  percent- 
age increased  as  the  Commentary  went  on.  It  is  greatest  in 
the  Gospel  of  John,  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  the  minor 
Pauline  Epistles.  We  give  here  a  few  specimens  of  emenda- 
tions which,  according  to  Dr.  Riddle,  were  adopted  in  the^frj/ 
English  Revision,  and  anticipated  in  the  American  edition  of 
Lange.  The  chapters  were  selected  at  random,  but  fairly  rep- 
resent the  average. 


The  English  New  Testament.  191 

authorizes  the  best  of  these  modern  improvements, 
together  with  many  new  ones,  for  the  pubhc  benefit. 
It  harvests  the  mature  fruits  of  the  critical  and  exe- 
getical  researches  of  whole  generations.  It  divests 
the  changes  of  personal  merits  and  demerits,  and 
gives  to  them  a  churchly  and  catholic  character.  It 
is  a  compromise:  every  member  had  to  sacrifice  some 
of  his  preferences  to  the  views  of  the  majority  ;  but 
for  this  very  reason  it  is  more  likely  to  prove  gener- 
ally acceptable  to  the  churches. 

Commentary  on  Matthew  (published  in  1864) : 

Chap  XXV.,  62  changes  by  Revisers,  30  anticipated  in  Lange. 

Commentary  on  John  (published  1871)  : 

Chap.  VII.,  85  changes  by  Revisers,  60  anticipated  in  Lange. 
Chap.  XI.,  Ill  changes  by  Revisers,  79  anticipated  in  Lange. 

Commentary  on  Ephesians  (published  1870) : 

Chap.  I.,     42  changes  by  Revisers,  35  anticipated  in  Lange. 

Chap.  II.,   55  changes  by  Revisers,  37  anticipated  in  Lange. 

Chap.  III.,  60  changes  by  Revisers,  36  anticipated  in  Lange. 

Chap.  IV.,  55  changes  by  Revisers,  43  anticipated  in  Lange. 
Chap,  v.,    64  changes  by  Revisers,  48  anticipated  in  Lange. 

Chap.  VI.,  38  changes  by  Revisers,  30  anticipated  in  Lange. 

314  229 

In    Romans   (published    1869),    and    Galatians    (published 
1870),  the  correspondence  is  at  times  even  greater. 


192         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

IX. THE    AMERICAN    APPENDIX. 

The  American  Appendix  is  short,  and  contains 
only  those  renderings  which  the  EngUsh  Company,  in 
its  final  action,  was  unwilling  to  accept,  and  which 
the  American  Committee  deemed  of  sufficient  impor- 
tance to  be  recorded  for  future  use.  It  is  provided 
for  by  the  fourth  article  of  the  agreement  of  Aug.  3, 
1877,  which  is  as  follows  : 

*'  (4.)  If  any  differences  shall  still  remain,  the  American 
Committee  will  yield  its  preferences  for  the  sake  of  harmony  ; 
provided  that  such  differences  of  reading  and  rendering  as  the 
American  Committee  may  represent  to  the  English  Companies 
to  be  of  special  importance,  be  distinctly  stated  either  in  the 
Preface  to  the  Revised  Version,  or  in  an  Appendix  to  the  vol- 
ume, during  a  term  of  fourteen  years  from  the  date  of  publica- 
tion, unless  the  American  Churches  shall  sooner  pronounce  a 
deliberate  opinion  upon  the  Revised  Version  with  the  view  of 
its  being  taken  for  public  use." 

The  Appendix  was  originally  much  larger,  but  has 
been  gradually  reduced,  by  honorable  and  liberal 
concessions  of  both  parties.  The  best  part  of  the 
American  labor  is  incorporated  in  the  book  ;  and 
there  it  will  remain,  whatever  may  become  of  the 
Appendix. 

The  remaining  differences  are  still  more  reduced 
when  we   consider   that  the  English  Revisers  have 


The  English  JVc7u   Testament.  193 

recognized    on   the    margin  many  of   the  American 
changes. 

The  American  renderings,  if  judged  by  the  Greek 
text,  may  be  traced  chiefly  to  greater  fideUty  and 
consistency.  The  revision  must  be  faithful  first  to 
the  original  Scriptures,  and  next  to  the  idiom  and 
vocabulary  of  the  Authorized  Version.  Sometimes 
these  two  kinds  of  loyalty  come  into  conflict.  In 
unimportant  or  doubtful  cases  the  English  Revisers 
allowed  their  regard  for  the  old  version  and  for 
English  usage  to  overrule  their  regard  for  the  Greek 
text,  and  felt  bound  to  do  so  by  the  Canterbury 
rules.  This  is  very  natural,  if  we  remember  that  the 
old  version  is  largely  incorporated  into  the  liturgical 
and  devotional  literature,  and  that  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer  is  a  greater  power  in  England  than  in 
the  United  States.  The  American  editions  of  the 
Prayer-Book  depart  from  the  English  editions  in 
some  of  the  disputed  particulars  of  language,  for 
instance  in  the  change  of  *'  which  "  to  ''  who  "  in  the 
Lord's  Prayer. 

The  American   Appendix    then  represents    closer 
adherence  to   the  Greek,  and  greater  freedom  from 

old  English  usage. 
13 


194         Co77ip anion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 


X. POINTS    OF    VARIATION. 

I  have  no  space,  nor  is  it  necessary  to  explain  in 
detail  the  American  Appendix.  But  I  shall  give  the 
reasons  for  the  most  important  changes  which  cover 
a  number  of  passages. 

T.    THE    TITLES   AND    HEADINGS   OF    BOOKS. 

I.  Omit  the  word  "  Saint  "  from  the  title  of  the  Gospels  and 
the  Revelation  of  John,  the  word  "  the  Apostle  "  from  the  title 
of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  "Paul  the  Apostle"  from  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  word  "  General  "  from  the  title  of 
the  Epistles  of  James,  Peter,  i  John,  and  Jude. 

The  reasons  for  these  omissions  are  as  follows : 

(«.)  There  is  no  authority  for  the  title  "  Saint  "  in 
the  old  Greek  mss.,  which  read  simply,  "  According 
to  Matthew  "  {Kara  Mar^aiov),  or  "  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  Matthew."  {EvayysXiov  7cara  M. ),  or 
in  latter  mss.,  "  The  Holy  Gospel  according  to  Mat- 
thew," etc. 

(^.)  The  technical  ecclesiastical  use  of  "Saint,"  as 
one  of  a  spiritual  nobility  distinct  from  ordinary 
Christians,  is  not  biblical,  but  dates  from  a  later  age. 
In  the  New  Testament  the  term  is  applied  to  all  be- 
lievers, as  being  separated  from  the  world,  conse- 
crated to  God  and  destined  for  holiness.     See  Rom. 


The  English  Neiu  Testament.  195 

1:7;  12  :  13  ;  16  :  15  ;  I  Pet.  2:9;  Acts  9  :  13, 
32,  41  ;  Jude,  ver.  3.  The  Apostles  and  their  disci- 
ples are  simply  called  by  their  names. 

(^.)  The  Authorized  Version  is  inconsistent  in  pre- 
fixing the  title  ''  Saint  "  to  the  Gospels  and  to  Reve- 
lation, but  omitting  it  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles,  as 
if  James,  Peter,  and  Paul  were  not  saints  as  well  as 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  ;  or  as  if  the  St.  John  of 
the  Gospel  and  of  the  Revelation  were  not  the  same 
as  the  John  of  the  Epistles.  The  inconsistency  is,  of 
course,  an  inadvertency.  The  Bishops'  Bible  retained 
the  title  "  Saint "  from  the  Vulgate  in  twenty-six 
books  of  the  New  Testament ;  the  Geneva  Bible  of 
1560  omitted  it  in  all  ;  the  first  edition  of  the 
Authorized  Version  of  161 1  omitted  it  in  all  but 
five. 

{d. )  The  title  "  Apostle"  is  likewise  wanting  in  the 
oldest  Greek  mss.,  which  read  simply,  "To  the  Ro- 
mans" (yrpog  'PcoOfiaiotJ?),  etc.,  although  some  in- 
sert "of  Paul,"  or  "  of  the  Apostle  Paul,"  or  "of  the 
holy  Apostle  Paul."  Moreover,  the  title  "  Apostle  " 
belongs  to  Peter  and  John  as  well  as  to  Paul,  and 
should  be  given  to  all  or  none. 

(e.)  The  present  title  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
("  the  Epistle  of  Paul  the  Apostle  to  the  Hebrews") 
prejudges  the  open  question  of  the  authorship  of  this 
anonymous    Epistle.      The  best   mss.   read   simply, 


196         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

"  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  "  (?/  npo^  'EppaiovZ 
inWToXi]). 

(/■)  The  title  "General"  (CathoHc)  of  the  Epis- 
tles of  James,  Peter,  John,  and  Jude  is  likewise  of 
later  date,  and  omitted  by  critical  editors.  It  is  also 
misleading,  and  applies  no  more  to  those  Epistles 
than  to  the  Ephesians  and  the  Hebrews,  which  have 
an  encyclical  character  ;  while  the  second  and  third 
Epistles  of  John  are  addressed  to  an  individual. 

An  objection  will  be  made  to  this  part  of  the  Ap- 
pendix by  those  who  deem  it  reverent  to  retain  the 
time-honored  "  Saint  "  in  connection  with  the  Evan- 
gelists and  Apostles.  But  then,  let  us  at  least  be 
consistent,  and  use  it  uniformly  or  drop  it  altogether. 
The  sacred  writers  must  be  our  standard  of  rever- 
ence, and  they  speak  of  each  other  simply  as  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  Luke,  John,  and  Paul.  The  highest 
order  of  merit  and  distinction  needs  no  epithet  of 
honor. 

2.     ARCHAIC    FORMS. 

wSubstitute  modern  forms  of  speech  for  the  following  archa- 
isms—viz., "who"  or  "that"  for  "which"  when  used  of 
persons  ;  "are  "  for  "  be  "  in  the  present  indicative  ;  "  know," 
"knew,"  for  "  wot,"  "  wist"  ;  "  drag  "  or  "  drag  aAvay  "  for 
"hale." 

There  is  a  difference  between  misleading  and  in- 


The  English  Netv  Tcsicunent.  197 

nocent  archaisms.  The  British  Comir.ittee  acts  on 
the  principle  of  removing  the  former  and  retaining 
the  latter  ;  the  American  Committee  removes  the 
latter  also,  in  those  cases  where  they  are  either  un- 
intelligible or  offend  against  the  present  rules  of 
grammar. 

The  Revision  has  justly  changed  such  words  and 
phrases  as  "to  prevent  "  for  "  precede  "  (i  Thess. 
4  :  15  ;  Matt.  17  125,  "spake  first");  "to  let"  for 
"to  hinder"  {Rom.  1:13;  2  Thess.  2:7);  "to 
fetch  a  compass  "  for  "  to  make  a  circuit,"  or  "  to  go 
round"  (Acts  28:13);  "conversation"  for  "con- 
duct," or  "  manner  of  life  "  (Gal.  i  :  13  ;  Eph.  4:22, 
etc.);  "atonement"  for  "reconciliation"  (Rom. 
5:12)  ;  "  ambassage  "  for  '' embassy"  (Luke  14: 
32);  "carriages"  for  "baggage"  (Acts  21:15); 
"  damnation  "  for  "  condemnation,"  or  "  judgment  " 
(Rom.  13  :  2  ;  i  Cor.  11  :  29)  ;  "coast"  for  "bor- 
der," or  "region";  "by-and-by"  for  "immedi- 
ately"; "instantly"  for  "urgently,"  and  many 
others. 

Why,  then,  not  go  a  little  further  ?  "  To  hale,"  in 
the  sense  *^to  drag  forcibly,"  is  certainly  obsolete  or 
misleading,  at  least  in  America,  but  has  been  retained 
in  Luke  12  :  58  ;  Acts  8  :  3.  "AVot"  for  "know," 
and  "  wist  "  for  "  knew  "  (Mark  14  :  40),  and  "  to  wit  " 
for  "  to  know  "  are   no  longer  in  use,  and  the  last 


198         Companion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

phrase  has  been  abandoned  by  the  Revision  (2  Cor. 
8  :  i),  for  *'  We  make  known  to  you  "  (instead  of  "  We 
do  you  to  wit  "). 

The  cases  of  "which"  for  "who  "  when  used  of 
persons,  and  "  be  "  for  "  are  "  in  the  present  indica- 
tive, are  very  frequent,  and  although  quite  harmless 
because  not  liable  to  misunderstanding,  might  as  well 
have  been  consistently  removed  in  all  passages,  as 
has  been  actually  done  in  a  great  many.  Why  should 
we  perpetuate  a  conflict  between  the  language  of  the 
school  and  the  language  of  the  Church  ?  Why  cen- 
sure a  schoolboy  for  following  the  Bible  ?  We  lose 
no  word  by  the  change,  since  "  which"  in  its  proper 
place,  for  the  neuter  gender  and  for  the  interrogative, 
is  retained,  and  is  just  as  good  new  English  as  "  who  " 
is  good  old  English. 

But  these  are  matters  of  national  taste.  I  heard 
Mr.  Gladstone  and  Mr.  Bright  say  that  they  would 
rather  pray  "  Our  Father  ivhich  art  in  heaven,"  than 
^'  tu/io  art  in  heaven."  So  the  strict  German  Luther- 
ans always  address  God,  not  in  the  more  correct 
modern  style,  ^^ Unser  Vater''  (although  Luther  so 
translated  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  Matt.  6  :  9),  but  in 
the  old-fashioned  and  now  ungrammatical  form, 
"  F<7/^r  ?/;/jr<?r "  which  Luther  retained  in  his  Cate- 
chism, in  accordance  with  the  Latin  ^^  Pater  nosterT 


The  English  New   Testament.  199 

3.    RENDERING  OF   TERMS  DENOTING  COINS. 

Let  dddcxpiov  (Matt,  10  :  29  ;  Luke  12:6)  be  translated 
'*  penny,"  and  dr/vapiov  "  shilling,"  except  in  Matt.  22  :  19  ; 
Mark  12  :  15  ;  Luke  20  :  24,  where  the  name  of  the  coin,  "  a 
denarius,"  should  be  given. 

The  rendering  of  coins  in  our  English  Version  is 
very  objectionable,  and  makes  a  false  impression 
upon  the  popular  reader.  *'  Mite  "  may  be  retained 
for  Xenrov  (the  eighth  part  of  an  affffapLor,  or  as, 
half  a  quadrans,  or  about  one-fifth  of  one  cent),  and 
"farthing"  for  Hodpavrj/g  {quadra7is,  the  fourth 
part  of  an  as,  equivalent  to  two  mites,  dvo  X^nra), 
as  in  Mark  12  :  42,  "  a  poor  widow  cast  in  two  mites 
which  make  a  farthing."  But  the  more  valuable  coins 
are  mischievously  perverted  and  belittled.  Bishop 
Lightfoot,  one  of  the  English  Revisers,  has  shown 
this  so  well  that  we  can  do  no  better  than  quote  him 
in  full  justification  of  the  American  view.  He  says  :* 
"  Why  a(D(japLOv,  the  late  Greek  diminutive  used 
for  the  as,  of  which,  therefore,  the  uodpavri]'^  is  a 
fourth  part,  should  still  be  translated  a  farthing 
(which  elsewhere  represents  Jiodpamji)  rather  than 
pemiy,  it  is  difficult  to  see  (Matt.  10  :   29  ;  Luke  12  : 

*  In  his  excellent  book,  "  A  Fresh  Revision  of  the  English 
New  Testament,"  London,  1871,  Am.  ed.  (Harpjers),  1873,  pp. 
141-143- 


200         Cotnpanion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

6).  And  as  we  advance  in  the  scale,  the  dispropor- 
tion between  the  value  of  the  orignial  and  the  Eng- 
lish substitute  increases.  Thus  the  denariiiSy  a  silver 
piece  of  the  value  originally  of  ten  and  afterward 
of  sixteen  ases,  is  always  rendered  a  penny.  Its  ab- 
solute value,  as  so  much  weight  in  metal,  is  as  nearly 
as  possible  the  same  as  the  French  franc.  Its  rela- 
tive value  as  a  purchasing  power,  in  an  age  and  a 
country  where  provisions  were  much  cheaper,  was 
considerably  more.  Now  it  so  happens  that  in  al- 
most every  case  where  the  word  dijvapiov  occurs  in 
the  New  Testament  it  is  connected  with  the  idea  of 
a  liberal  or  large  amount ;  and  yet  in  these  passages 
the  English  rendering  names  a  sum  which  is  absurd- 
ly small.  Thus  the  Good  Samaritan,  whose  generos- 
ity is  intended  to  appear  throughout,  on  leaving, 
takes  out  '  two  pence,'  and  gives  them  to  the  inn- 
keeper to  supply  the  further  wants  of  the  wounded 
man.  Thus,  again,  the  owner  of  the  vineyard,  whose 
liberality  is  contrasted  with  the  niggardly,  envious 
spirit,  the  '  evil  eye  '  of  others,  gives,  as  a  day's  wages, 
*  a  penny '  to  each  man.  It  is  unnecessary  to  ask 
what  impression  the  mention  of  this  sum  will  leave  on 
the  minds  of  an  uneducated  peasant  or  shopkeeper  of 
the  present  day.  Even  at  the  time  when  our  Version 
was  made,  and  when  wages  were  lower,  it  must  have 
seemed  wholly  inadequate.     The  inadequacy  again 


The  English  New  Testament.  201 

appears,  though  not  so  prominently,  in  '  the  tv/o  hun- 
dred pence,'  the  sum  named  as  insufficient  to  supply 
bread  to  the  five  thousand  (Mark  6:37;  John  6  :  7), 
and  similarly  in  other  cases  {e.g.,  Mark  14  :  5  5  J^^^^ 
12  :  5  ;  Luke  7  :  41).  Lastly,  in  the  Book  of  the 
Revelation  (6  :  6),  the  announcement,  which  in  the 
original  implies  famine  prices,  is  rendered  in  our  Eng- 
lish Version,  '  A  measure  of  wheat  for  a  penny,  and 
three  measures  of  barley  for  a  penny.'  The  fact  is 
that  the  word  xo?yz<^,  here  translated  '  measure,' 
falls  below  the  amount  of  a  quart,  while  the  word 
6i]vapiov^  here  translated  '  a  penny,'  approaches  to- 
ward the  value  of  a  shilling.  To  the  English  reader 
the  words  must  convey  the  idea  of  enormous  plenty." 
The  judgment  of  the  best  English  scholars  is  en- 
tirely in  our  favor.  If  the  ^'  penny,"  which  occurs  in 
no  less  than  sixteen  passages,  was  nevertheless  re- 
tained (although  with  a  correction  in  the  margin),  it 
must  be  traced  partly  to  an  over-conservative  regard 
for  popular  usage,  and  partly  to  the  difficulty  of  find- 
ing a  precise  idiomatic  equivalent  for  the  Greek 
Sip^apiov  (Latin  denarius).  Sometimes  a  little  mat- 
ter gives  most  trouble.  This  is  an  instance.  The  penny 
was  discussed  over  and  over  again  in  both  Commit- 
tees. In  the  English  Company  at  an  early  stage  the 
Anglicized  form  "  denary  "  was  about  to  be  adopted, 
when  the  late  Dean  Alford  killed  it  by  the  humorous 


202         Companio?i  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

objection  that  ''denary"  might  be  mispronounced 
''deanery,"  and  give  rise  to  the  jest  that  the  Revisers 
sold  a  deanery  for  a  penny.  The  precise  rendering 
would  be  "eight  pence,"  but  this  is  no  single  coin. 
*'  Six  pence  "  in  this  respect  would  do  better,  but 
falls  short  of  the  full  value.  Still  less  would  English- 
men tolerate  "  sixteen  cents,"  nor  would  Americans 
think  of  intruding  their  coins  into  the  Bible.  But 
they  considered  repeatedly  the  claims  of  "  shilling," 
"  franc,"  "  silverling,"  "  drachma,"  "  denarius," 
"denary,"  "denar."  The  Latin  "  denarius  "  would 
have  been  adopted  throughout,  if  it  were  not  for  the 
passages  where  the  word  occurs  in  the  plural  (Mark 
6  :  37;  14  :  5;  Luke  7  :  41;  10  :  35;  John  6:7;  12  : 
5) ;  for  dfiarii  sounds  too  much  like  Latin  for  an 
English  Bible.  They  agreed  at  last  upon  "  shilling," 
but  would  prefer  any  other  of  the  proposed  render- 
ings to  "  penny."  A  shilling  is  not  absolutely  cor- 
rect, but  is  a  genuine  English  silver  coin,  and  does 
not  convey  the  wrong  idea  of  a  ridiculously  small 
sum.  There  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that,  if  found 
in  the  old  version,  it  would  have  been  retained  by 
both  Committees. 

4.  MORE  ACCURATE  RENDERINGS. 

(«.)  Put    into    the  text  uniformly    tlie    marginal    rendering 
"through"  in    place  of  "  by,"  when  it  relates  to  prophecy — 


The  English  Neiv  Testaincnt.  203 

viz.,  in  Matt.  2  :  5,  17,  23;  3  :  3;  4  :  14;  8  :  17;  12  :  17;  13  :  35; 
21  :  4;  24  :  15;  27  :  9;  Luke  18  :  31;  Acts  2  :  16;  23  :  25. 

This  is  important  to  indicate  the  difference  of  the 
primary  and  secondary  authorship  of  prophecy, 
which  is  given  by  the  Holy  Spirit  through  the  prophet 
{6ia  rov  npoqji'jTOv). 

{b.)  Let  the  word  "testament"  be  everywhere  changed  to 
"covenant"  (without  an  alternate  in  the  margin),  except  in 
Heb.  9:  15-17- 

It  is  well  known  that  diaBrfuri  in  Hellenistic  Greek 
means  usually  covenant  (corresponding  to  the  Hebrew 
berith),  except,  perhaps,  in  Heb.  9  :  15-17,  and  also 
in  Gal.  3  :  15,  but  even  in  these  passages  the  same 
meaning  is  preferred  by  many  commentators.  The 
translation  "testament  "  in  the  English  Version  (Matt. 
26  :  28,  etc.),  in  accordance  with  the  Vulgate,  gave 
rise  to  the  designation  of  the  "  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment "  (instead  of  "  Covenant  "),  which  is  especially 
improper  in  the  case  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
American  Committee  thought  at  first  of  proposing 
also  a  change  of  the  title,  but  gave  it  up,  as  "  Old  and 
New  Testament"  have  assumed  a  settled  meaning  in 
all  translations  of  the  Bible,  and  hardly  could  be 
changed. 

{c.)  Substitute  "demon"  or  "demons"  for  "devil"  or 
"devils,"    where  the  Gi'eek  has  (Sa/y.icaK  ox  dai/ioviov,  :i?>  in 


204         Co77ipanion  to  the  Revised  Version  of 

the  phrases  "  to  cast  out  devils,"  "  tobe  possessed  with  a  devil," 
"  to  have  a  devil." 

The  Bible  knows  only  of  one  devil,  but  of  a  great 
many  evil  spirits.  The  English  Revision  acknowl- 
edges the  distinction  in  the  margin,  but  not  in  the 
text,  which  will  continue  to  mislead  the  reader  not 
acquainted  with  Greek. 

The  two  Committees  had  a  similar  conflict  about 
''hades"  and  "hell."  The  Americans  insisted  from 
the  start  on  the  restoration  of  the  important  distinc- 
tion between  hades ^  i.  e.^  the  spirit- world  or  the  realm 
of  the  dead,'  Sind^ehefina,  i.  e.^  the  state  and  place  of 
torment,  or  hell — a  distinction  which  is  obliterated  in 
King  James'  Version,  so  that  the  fearful  word  hell  oc- 
curs  twice  as  often  in  it  as  it  does  in  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment. The  English  Revisers,  from  conservative  re- 
gard to  old  usage,  opposed  the  insertion  of  "hades" 
and  persistently  retained  "  hell "  until  they  reached 
the  Apocalypse,  when  the  American  suggestion  was 
adopted.  Habit  is  strong,  but  truth  is  stronger,  and 
will  prevail  at  last. 

CONCLUSION. 

The  Appendix  is  subject  to  the  verdict  of  the 
American  Christian  community.  If  approved  by 
public  opinion,  it  will  ultimately  be  incori)oraled  in 

.  ^  J 


The  English  New  Te  statue  fit  205 

the  text  of  the  American  editions  ;  if  not,  it  will  still 
retain  a  certain  literary  and  historical  value.  The 
American  Bible  Society,  with  its  present  constitution, 
is  confined  to  the  circulation  of  the  Authorized  Eng- 
lish Version,  and  cannot  publish  the  Revision.  But 
this  constitution  can  be  changed,  and  will  be  changed 
whenever  the  churches  which  support  the  Society 
adopt  the  Revision.  Then  will  be  the  proper  time  to 
make  the  American  Appendix  practically  available,  if 
deemed  wise  and  expedient.  This  will  not  be  the  issue 
of  a  rival  Revision,  but  only  an  American  recension 
of  one  and  the  same  Revision  :  and  the  changes  will  no 
more  affect  the  unity  of  the  Revision  than  the  differ- 
ences of  English  and  American  spelling  now  affect  the 
unity  of  the  English  language.  On  the  contrary,  the 
essential  unity  will  be  all  the  more  apparent  and 
effective  for  the  variety  in  unessential  details.  Wor- 
shipers of  the  letter  may  take  offense,  but  worshipers 
of  the  spirit  of  the  Bible  will  rejoice. 

But  whatever  may  be  the  ultimate  fate  of  the 
American  Appendix,  it  is  of  very  little  account  as  com- 
pared with  the  substantial  agreement.  It  is  a  matter 
of  wonder  and  congratulation  that  two  Committees, 
divided  by  the  ocean  and  representing  two  indepen- 
dent and  high-minded  nations  sensitive  of  their  honor, 
should,  after  several  years  of  unbroken  and  conscien- 
tious labor,  have  arrived  at  such  a  substantial  har- 


2o6  Revised  Version  of  the  English  New  Testame7it. 

mony  in  the  translation  of  their  most  sacred  book, 
which  is  recognized  by  both  as  their  infaUible  guide 
in  all  matters  of  Christian  faith  and  duty. 

The  Anglo-American  Revision  is  the  noblest  mon- 
ument of  Christian  union  and  co-operation  in  this 
nineteenth  century. 

And  herein  is  the  finger  of  Providence,  and  the 
best  guarantee  of  success. 


INDEX    OF    TEXTS. 


Matthew 

Matthew 

continnect). 

PACK 

PAGB 

i. 

I 

... 

... 

17 

X. 

22 

... 

... 

144 

ii. 

I 

... 

... 

"3 

-\i. 

19 

... 

.. 

144 

2 

... 

... 

94 

xii. 

41 

... 

... 

133 

4 

... 

... 

91 

47 

... 

... 

7 

15 

... 

... 

93 

xiii. 

16 

... 

... 

10 

17 

... 

... 

112 

21 

... 

... 

108 

iii. 

14 

... 

... 

98 

47 

... 

... 

137 

17 

... 

... 

12 

52 

... 

... 

130 

iv. 

I 

... 

... 

131 

xiv. 

2 

... 

... 

128 

6 

... 

... 

144 

8 

... 

... 

76 

19 

... 

... 

144 

19 

... 

50 

V. 

4 

... 

... 

137 

XV. 

27 

... 

... 

76 

8, 

9... 

... 

6 

xvi. 

14 

... 

... 

112 

22 

... 

48 

23 

... 

... 

108 

29 

... 

... 

108 

xvii. 

4 

... 

... 

13 

40 

... 

... 

127 

5 

... 

148 

48 

... 

... 

99 

10 

... 

... 

112 

vi. 

13 

... 

... 

S,  60 

19 

... 

... 

144 

34 

... 

... 

109 

24 

... 

... 

115 

Aii. 

13 

... 

102 

25 

... 

... 

107 

viii. 

5 

... 

... 

137 

27 

... 

... 

"5 

6 

... 

... 

123 

xviil. 

17 

... 

... 

48 

20 

... 

... 

93 

28 

... 

... 

8 

33 

... 

... 

13 

xix. 

7 

... 

... 

144 

X. 

4 

... 

... 

75 

20 

... 

... 

95 

14 

... 

... 

144 

XX. 

24 

... 

... 

148 

203 


Index  of  Texts, 


Matthew 

[coniinuid) 

Mark  [continued). 

PAGE 

PAGB 

XX 

27 

... 

... 

148 

vi. 

20 

... 

49 

xxii. 

37 

..• 

... 

119 

27 

... 

... 

1X4 

xxiii 

7 

... 

... 

148 

52 

... 

... 

82 

24 

... 

... 

116 

ix. 

3 

... 

... 

46 

33 

... 

... 

133 

5 

... 

... 

13 

35 

... 

... 

122 

7 

... 

... 

148 

xxiv. 

24 

... 

... 

127 

22, 

23 

... 

49 

30 

... 

... 

103 

24 

... 

... 

46 

40, 

41 

... 

99 

28 

... 

... 

144 

XXV. 

3 

... 

... 

10 

39 

... 

... 

128 

6 

... 

... 

18,  49-  97 

x. 

4 

... 

... 

144 

27 

... 

... 

108 

41 

... 

... 

148 

46 

... 

... 

140 

44 

... 

... 

148 

xxvi. 

15 

... 

... 

77 

51 

... 

... 

149 

25 

... 

... 

148 

xii. 

6 

... 

... 

148 

26 

... 

... 

53 

26 

... 

... 

30 

41 

... 

... 

144 

40 

... 

... 

133 

49 

... 

... 

149 

xiii. 

13 

... 

... 

144 

xxvii. 

3 

... 

... 

124 

32 

... 

... 

127 

9 

... 

... 

112 

xiv. 

38 

... 

... 

144 

45 

... 

139 

XV. 

33 

... 

... 

138 

57 

... 

130 

45 

... 

... 

149 

xxviii. 

19 

... 

... 

103 

xvi. 

16 

... 

... 

133 

9- 

-20 

130 

9- 

-20 

... 

61 

M 

\RK. 

Luke. 

i. 

2 

... 

... 

10 

i. 

59 

... 

... 

98 

II 

... 

... 

12 

63 

... 

... 

108 

17 

... 

... 

144 

ii. 

33 

... 

... 

15 

27 

... 

... 

47 

41 

... 

... 

IS 

iii. 

5 

... 

... 

82 

iii. 

14 

... 

... 

92 

18 

... 

... 

75 

23 

... 

... 

77 

iv. 

29 

... 

... 

77 

iv. 

10 

... 

... 

144 

V. 

30 

... 

... 

108 

20 

... 

... 

no 

41 

... 

... 

76 

V. 

6 

... 

98 

vi. 

3 

... 

... 

113 

18 

... 

... 

148 

5 

... 

... 

127 

vi. 

15 

... 

... 

76 

14 

... 

... 

127 

19 

... 

... 

io3 

Index  of  Texts. 


209 


Luke  [contimied). 


vii. 

34      . 

viii. 

23 

34      . 

46      . 

54      . 

ix. 

s    . 

T5 

0-       • 

33      . 

58      . 

xi. 

48      . 

SI     . 

xiii. 

2 

xiv. 

10 

XV. 

10      , 

26      . 

xvi. 

9      . 

xviii. 

12 

xix. 

13        . 

XX. 

37      . 

xxii. 

S6      . 

xxiii. 

5      . 

8      . 

42      . 

44      . 

xxiv. 

17      . 

25      . 

46      . 

S3      . 

!. 

IX       . 

21 

38     . 

42      . 

iii. 

16     . 

17,  18 

iv. 

31      . 

John. 


144 
98 
13 

108 
76 

144 
78 
13 
93 

107 

122 

94 
107 
124 
123 

50 
78 
108 
30 
78 

113 

127 

102 

139 

50 

79 

50 

9 


117 

93 
148 
112 
119 

133 
148 


John  {contin 

iv.  37     ... 

48     ... 

ued) 

PAGE 

93 

127 

V.    3, 

4... 

... 

7 

33 
vi.  II 

... 

... 

97 
SO 

32 

... 

... 

93 

50 

... 

... 

18 

57 

... 

... 

lOI 

vii.     I 

... 

... 

113 

17 

... 

... 

127 

20 

... 

... 

130 

41 

... 

... 

99 

53- 

-viii.  II 

... 

63 

viii.  33 
52 
58 

:: 

... 

97 

18 

129 

ix.   17 

... 

... 

79 

X.   14, 

16 

IS 

... 

79 
120 

23 

... 

... 

122 

xi.     3. 
20 

s... 

... 

119 

80 

xii.  40 

..• 

... 

82 

xiii.     2 

•.• 

... 

131 

10 

... 

... 

125 

24 

... 

... 

SI 

xvii.     3 
12 

... 

... 

91 

128 

XX.      2 

... 

... 

119 

16 

xxi.  15, 

16,  17 

... 

SI.  149 

112,   118 

18, 

19 

... 

96 

Acts. 


i.  13 

"•  3 
II 


76 
80 

113 


2  lO 


Index  of  Texts, 


Acts  [cmitit 

ii.  27 
iii.  13,  26 

uect, 

FAGK 
116 
123 

i 

13 

29 

Romans. 

PAGE 

106 

108 

19. 

20 

... 

80 

ii. 

22 

... 

149 

iv.  27, 

30 

... 

123 

iii. 

25 

... 

... 

81 

V.  20 

... 

... 

112 

iv. 

3. 

&c. 

... 

140, 

143 

vii.  13 

... 

... 

137 

19 

... 

... 

52 

45 

... 

... 

113 

v. 

I 

... 

... 

52 

viii.  9 

... 

... 

129 

vi. 

2 

... 

... 

134 

16 

... 

... 

103 

vii. 

6 

... 

... 

52 

37 

... 

... 

8 

7, 

8... 

... 

141 

X.  38 
xii.  4 

... 

... 

132 
116 

viii . 
xi. 

I 

7,  25 

... 

II 

82 

12, 

25 

... 

112 

30 

... 

... 

125 

xiii.  7, 

8,12 

... 

114 

xii. 

2 

... 

... 

131 

xiv.  21 

... 

... 

130 

17 

... 

... 

107 

XV.  C3 

... 

... 

51 

19 

... 

... 

143, 

148 

xvi.  I 

... 

... 

112 

xiv. 

4 

... 

... 

10 

7 
21 

... 

... 

51 
130 

XV. 

23 
6 

::: 

... 

133 

23. 

27 

... 

151 

30 

... 

... 

102 

xvii.  19 

... 

... 

113 

xvi. 

5 

... 

... 

52 

23 

28 
xviii.  5 

... 

... 

108 
138 

SI 

23 
I 

114 

CORINTHIAl^IS. 

xix.  2 

... 

... 

95 

i. 

13 

... 

103 

9 
II 

31 

... 

... 

93 
128 
114 

iii. 
iv. 

17 

3, 
4 

4,5 

" 

T38 
133 

82 

37 

38 

XX.  28 

... 

... 

149 

114 

14 

vi. 

vii. 

13 

20 
26 

... 

... 

18 
II 

102 

xxi.  15 

... 

... 

109 

viii. 

6 

... 

... 

103 

xxii.  28 

... 

... 

127 

X. 

2 

... 

... 

103 

XXV.  26 

... 

... 

133 

24 

... 

... 

107 

xxvi.  13 

24, 

25 

... 

134 
147 

xi. 

24 
26 

... 

... 

53 
53 

28 

... 

... 

81 

29 

... 

... 

53. 

107 

jcviii.  13 

... 

... 

no 

31 

... 

... 

133 

Index  of  Texts. 


I  Corinthians 

(^continitecf). 

Ephes 

lANS. 

PAGE 

PAGE 

xii.    6 

18 

i. 

7 

... 

...          13 

29 

... 

128 

9 

... 

...       145 

xiii,     3 

... 

S3 

17 

... 

...       126 

12 

... 

126 

ii. 

2 

... 

...      125 

xiv.  20 

... 

122 

iv. 

2 

... 

...    145 

XV.      4 

... 

96 

6 

... 

...    145 

xvi.   15 

... 

52 

18 
29 

... 

...  82 
...      84 

2 

Corinthians. 

V. 

I 

... 

...    148 

i.    I 

29 

... 

...      54 

It2 

... 

... 

vi. 

S 

... 

...    14s 

4, 

6 ... 

... 

142 

12 

...    no 

19 

... 

... 

112 

20 

... 

... 

47 

Philippians. 

ii.  14 

... 

... 

83 

i. 

16, 

17 

...      54 

r6 

... 

... 

149 

ic. 

6 

...      3<5 

iii.     5 

... 

... 

149 

14 

82 

IS 

... 

...      99 

IS 

... 

... 

92 

iii. 

S 
20 

... 

...  92 
...    107 

15, 

18 

... 

142 

iv. 

2, 

3  ••• 

...      85 

17 
iv.    3 

*.*.'. 

*.'.*. 

93  ■ 
142 

8 

...    107 

V.  10 

... 

... 

100 

Colossians. 

14 

... 

... 

134 

2£ 

liO 

I. 

^4 

... 

...      13 

id. 

2 

... 

...      65 

vi.    9 

... 

... 

126 

8 

... 

...      8s 

vii.     8. 

ro 

... 

124 

12 

.« 

..     145 

ZI 

... 

,,, 

93 

X.  IS. 

16 

... 

153 

18 

... 

...      54 

xii.  19 

... 

54 

19 

... 

...    145 

iii. 

12 

... 

...    145 

Galatians. 

17 

... 

...     151 

22 

... 

...    145 

iii.    6 

... 

... 

142 

iv. 

10 

...    112 

iv.    8 

..< 

... 

148 

14 

... 

...    112 

14 

... 

... 

54 

17 

... 

... 

107 

I  Thessalonians. 

31 

... 

... 

92 

i. 

I 

...     55 

V.    E7 

... 

... 

24 

ii. 

C9 

... 

...     ^% 

212 


Index  of  Texts. 


I   TheSSALONIANS   {coHf-n?ted). 

2 

Timothy 

{continuecf). 

PAGE 

PAGH 

iii. 

II 

... 

... 

55 

3 

... 

... 

55 

13 

... 

... 

55 

10 

... 

... 

56 

iv. 

IS 

... 

... 

107 

12 

... 

... 

139 

V. 

28 

... 

... 

55 

iii. 

12 
15 

... 

... 

56 
56 

2  THESSALONIANS. 

V. 

II 

... 

1X2 

I. 

2 

... 

55 

Ti 

TUS. 

12 

... 

55 

4 

... 

55 

ii. 

I 

3 

... 

85 
91 

12 

... 

... 

112 

7 

... 

106 

Philemon 

8 

... 

55, 

134 

2 
7 

... 

... 

56 
56 

1  Timothy. 

24 

... 

X12 

i 

4 

6 

Hebrews 

12 

... 

... 

55 

14 

... 

... 

55 

i. 

3 

... 

134 

ii. 

5 

,„ 

... 

55 

iii. 

II 

... 

143 

7 

... 

... 

151 

iv. 

2 

... 

56 

iii. 

13 

... 

... 

55 

3, 

5-.. 

143 

16 

... 

... 

19, 

66 

6 

... 

125 

iv. 

6 

... 

... 

55 

8 

... 

"3 

V. 

4 

... 

... 

108 

12 

... 

107 

21 

... 

... 

55 

14 

... 

103 

vl 

5 

... 

... 

86 

"!"■ 

7 

... 

lOI 

8 

... 

... 

99 

IX. 

6 

... 

99 

9 

... 

... 

127 

X. 

30 

... 

143 

10 

... 

... 

92 

34 

... 

56 

12, 

13 

... 

151 

xi. 

10 

... 

91 

13 

... 

55 

13 
23 

::: 

56.  86 
108 

2  Timothy. 

xii. 

I 

... 

no 

12 

... 

148 

i. 

1 

2 

... 

55 

56 

xiii. 

21 

112 

9 

... 

... 

56 

James. 

>3 

... 

... 

56 

i. 

6 

... 

... 

131 

Index  of  Texts. 


213 


James  {continued). 

2  John. 

PAGB 

PAGE 

19 

... 

... 

57 

8 

... 

57 

ii.     I 

... 

... 

III 

2 

... 

... 

150 

3  John. 

iii.    I 

... 

... 

III 

V.  20 

... 

... 

93 

13 

... 

... 

57 

I  Peter, 

Jude. 

1.    3 

ii.     8 

... 

151 
125 

I 

8 

... 

... 

58.  "4 
145 

21 

... 

... 

57 

13 

... 

... 

145 

iii.   II 

... 

... 

107 

15 

... 

... 

63 

Revelation. 

21 

... 

... 

87 

i. 

3 

... 

... 

93 

iv.     8 

... 

... 

93 

ii. 

13 

... 

... 

139 

V.      I 

... 

... 

137 

iv 

I 

... 

... 

10 

13 

... 

113 

4 

... 

... 

139 

6&C. 

... 

87 

a  Peter. 

V. 

6& 

c. 

... 

87 

vi. 

I&C. 

87 

J.    3 

... 

... 

I03 

vii. 

II 

87 

14 

... 

... 

95 

ii.  10 

145 

14 

... 

... 

99 

xiii. 

I 

... 

88 

17 

... 

... 

145 

xiv. 

3 

87 

iii.  3 

... 

... 

57 

XV. 

9 
7 

... 

... 

88 
87 

I  John. 

xn. 

10 

... 

... 

139 

ii.  23 

... 

... 

151 

xvii. 

8 

... 

... 

58 

iu.     I 

... 

57 

xix. 

4 

... 

... 

87 

V.    7. 

8  ... 

... 

15,69 

xxii. 

n 

... 

... 

58 

13 

,.. 

... 

47 

14 

... 

... 

59 

CISSEIL'S  POPEAE  LIBRAEY. 


Messrs.  CASSELL,  PETTER,  GALPIN  &  CO.  have  the  pleasure 
to  announce  that  thej^  have  made  arrangements  for  the  issue,  under 
the  above  title,  of  a  Series  of 

NEW  AND  ORIGINAL  WORKS 

On  subjects  of  widespread  interesi,   by  well-known  Aulhors. 

These  volumes  being  issued  in  a  popular,  portable,  and  readable 
form,  at  a  price  which  brings  them  within  the  reach  of  all,  it  is 
believed  that  an  opportunity  will  be  thus  afforded  of  securing  a 
Library  which  will  be  an  unfailing  source  of  entertainment  to  old 
and  young  in  their  hours  of  leisure  and  recreation. 


History  of  tie  Free-Trafle  Movemeit  in  MM. 

By  AUGUSTUS  MONGREDIEN. 

THE  SCOTTISH  COVENANTERS. 

By  JAMES  TAYLOR,  D.D.,  F.A.S.E. 

BOSWELL    AND    JOHNSON. 

By  J.  F.  WALLER,  LL.D. 
Paper  Cover,  -  25  cents. 

Cloth,  -  -  -        SO  cents. 

TJie  following  volumes,  to   be  issued  in  this  series,  are  in 
active  preparation. 

Rowland    Hill.  American    Humorists. 

The  Life  of  Wesley.         Domestic  Folk-Lore. 

If  not  for  sale  by  your  Bookseller,  vill  be  sent,  prepaid,  on  receipt  of  th3  price. 

Oassell,  Fetter,  Galpin  and  Co., 

739  &  741  BROA.DWAT,  NEW  YORK, 


SEND    TO 


Cassell,  Petter,Galpin  &  Co., 

739  &  741  BROADWAY,  NEW  YORK, 

FOR   THEIR 

COMPLETE    CATALOGUE 


VALUABLE    (BOOKS 

IN 

Every  Department  of  Literature. 


^ 

g 

5- 

H 

a* 

d 

o 

^ 

0- 

5j 

g 

0 

S 

0 

3o 

>    > 

•P- 

0 

C^ 

^^ 

g 

2  r 
0  a 

ii 

^ 

K 

L^ 

n 

i,^ 

fa- 

K 

s 

i    ^ 

>d 

JL 

w 

^ 

o' 

o 

ri 

i^ 

^ 

51 

o 

^ 

k: 

i 

i 

0 

ivi278479 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


